Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

Oral Answers to Questions — GREAT BRITAIN AND RUSSIA.

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that an official Russian statement has been made by M. Molotov concerning Anglo-Russian negotiations prior to the war, he will now consider the advisability of approaching the various countries concerned, with a view to asking their permission for the publication of the necessary documents, in order that a statement from the British point of view on the subject may be made?

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): The decision of my Noble Friend conveyed to the House in reply to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Mr. E. Smith) on nth October was taken in the light of several considerations, and my Noble Friend is not prepared to approach the various countries concerned.

Mr. Mander: Are the British Government willing to hide themselves? Do they object to the publication? If not, why not make approaches to these various other States to see whether they are willing to agree to publication?

Mr. Butler: The British Government never hides itself.

Mr. Attlee: Will the Government not reconsider this matter? After all, we had a very full White Paper with regard to what has transpired between Germany and this country, and as there is great interest in the matter in the country, we ought to know the nature of the discussions with Russia?

Mr. Butler: In view of the important considerations put by the right hon.

Gentleman, my Noble Friend has given very serious consideration to this question already. I am afraid I am not able to alter the decision which he has reached in the matter.

Mr. Gallacher: Is it not the case that there was a deliberate refusal of a proposal for the defence of Poland, and is it not necessary that we should get some information as to the reason?

Mr. Butler: I cannot accept the statement made by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister the position with regard to the resumption of trade negotiations between this country and Russia, inaugurated by the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department when he visited Moscow; what proposals have been put forward recently by the Russian Government on the subject; and what reply has been sent?

Mr. Butler: As I stated in reply to the hon. Member on nth October, the Soviet Government have not proposed a resumption of the negotiations which my right hon. Friend, the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department, had hoped to inaugurate by his visit to Moscow; but the possibility of following up the recent agreement for the exchange of timber against rubber and tin by further arrangements suitable to war conditions is now under examination.

Mr. Mander: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how soon it will be before a reply is sent, in view of the long delay that has taken place?

Mr. Butler: It is not a case of sending a reply. It is a case of examining the conditions to which I refer, in relation to the circumstances of the war, and that is being done at the moment.

Mr. Shinwell: Does the reply mean that the Government are now taking the initiative towards the resumption of trade discussions with the Soviet Government?

Mr. Butler: My reply, I think, means what I would like to state, namely, that this matter is under examination.

Mr. Shinwell: Will the right hon. Gentleman appreciate the urgent need for resuming trade discussions with the Soviet Government?

Mr. Butler: I can assure the hon. Gentleman, as I have already said, that the fact that this matter is under examination at this moment shows the importance that we attach to the question.

Sir Nairne Stewart Sandeman: As regards the trade which my right hon. Friend has mentioned, will those goods be carried in Russian bottoms?

Mr. Butler: I would require notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN SETTLEMENT (PROPOSALS).

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability of arranging that study shall be undertaken by the appointment of a special committee, or otherwise, of the problems involved in establishing a European Commonwealth after the war on the lines suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery)?

Mr. Butler: His Majesty's Government are prepared to consider any proposals by which a stable international system having as its object the prevention of war and the just settlement of international disputes by pacific means can be effectively achieved. They are not, however, prepared at this stage to set up a special committee such as is proposed by the hon. Member.

Mr. Mander: Can the right hon. Gentleman, at any rate, give an assurance that this proposal, in which great public interest is taken, is being seriously studied by the Foreign Office?

Mr. Butler: Certainly.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the very great service rendered during the last war by the Phillimore Committee, and will the Government consider again whether that precedent might not usefully be followed now?

Mr. Butler: I will certainly direct the attention of my Noble Friend to the Phillimore Committee and consider the suggestion which the hon. Gentleman has made.

Mr. Leach: asked the Prime Minister whether he is prepared to make it known to the people of Germany that His

Majesty's Government are willing to explore the possibility of forming a united states of Europe as part of the terms of peace?

Mr. Butler: The hon. Member's suggestion will be borne in mind, but at present I have nothing to add to my reply to his rather similar question on 27th September.

Mr. Leach: Can the right hon. Gentleman not give me some encouragement in regard to making this proposition known to the people of Germany, and the Government's friendliness to the principle?

Mr. Butler: I do not doubt that the German people hear a great deal of what is said here, and to that extent I daresay the hon. Gentleman's suggestion is receiving the attention which he desires.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH WAR AIMS.

Mr. A. Edwards: asked the Prime Minister whether, when formulating our war aims, he will see that the liberation of the German people is placed in the forefront?

Mr. Butler: I would refer the hon. Member to the Prime Minister's speech on 12th October, in which the attitude of His Majesty's Government towards the German people is expressed.

Mr. Edwards: Does that statement include the liberation of the German people?

Mr. Butler: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will refer to the statement on which I could not improve.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY (BRITISH INTERNEES).

Mr. Keeling: asked the Prime Minister how many British civilians are interned in Germany; and what arrangements are being made to send them food, clothing, and medical supplies?

Mr. Butler: A report dated 3rd October, received through the good offices of the United States Chargé d'Affaires in Berlin, indicated that 102 British civilians were then interned as well as some 300 lascars who had been removed from their ships. The United States Chargé d'Affaires is at present providing relief where necessary and funds will be supplied to enable him


to continue to relieve distress. Meanwhile arrangements of a more permanent character are under discussion for sending supplies from this country.

Mr. Lipson: Have the Government any information as to the way in which these people are being treated?

Mr. Butler: We have information which has been received through the good offices of the United States Chargé d'Affaires. The hon. Member will have seen that they are receiving certain funds and food in relief of their distress at the present time.

Oral Answers to Questions — POISON GAS (GERMAN ALLEGATIONS).

Mr. Arthur Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the repeated official German allegations that gas was supplied to the Polish Government by His Majesty's Government in breach of the Anti-gas Geneva Convention of 1925, he will make a statement on the matter?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War has already caused the most explicit denial to be made of this impudent and transparent falsehood. I am nevertheless grateful for this opportunity of stating categorically once more that poison gas has never been supplied by this country to Poland in any form.

Mr. Henderson: Is it the view of the Government that these allegations constitute propaganda to justify the possible use of gas by the Germans themselves?

The Prime Minister: We have known similar instances in the past.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

PERSONNEL (DEAFNESS).

Sir Francis Fremantle: asked the Secretary of State for Air what action he has taken to reduce deafness from engine-noise in the aviators and mechanics of his Department, and to ascertain and train the deafened for further service; and whether he will obtain the co-operation of the National Institute for the Deaf in the matter?

The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Kingsley Wood): Devices to lessen the effect of aircraft noise are provided for

all flying personnel and research into the question is continuing. Nerve deafness due to engine noise affects the hearing to a minor degree only and, as cases are detected at an early stage, does not ordinarily result in incapacitation. All flying personnel are examined periodically to assess the condition of their special sense organs, including the ears.

Sir F. Fremantle: When men are found to be to a certain extent deafened, will the right hon. Gentleman consider having them trained for further service as such training is found to be practical and useful in civil life?

Sir K. Wood: Yes, Sir.

DEPENDANTS' ALLOWANCES.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will have issued as a White Paper, for the information of Members of the House, the rates and regulations governing allowances to dependants of men of the Royal Air Force?

Sir K. Wood: Yes, Sir. Information regarding allowances to dependants of men in the Royal Air Force will be included in the White Paper which is shortly to be published by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War.

Mr. Hall: When shall we get that? We were promised it by the Secretary of State for War last week but we have not had it yet. Shall we get it before the war ends?

Mr. Anstruther-Gray: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that the children's allowances paid to many of the men in all the fighting forces are totally inadequate?

BILLETING, CAMBRIDGE (LIGHTING RESTRICTIONS).

Mr. Vyvyan Adams: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that members of the Royal Air Force stationed in colleges at Cambridge University are allowed no other illumination than blue lighting in their rooms; that this restriction prevents reading; that in consequence these men have no recreation after dark other than that offered by the cinemas and the streets and that the social consequences are serious; and what action he proposes to alleviate their conditions?

Sir K. Wood: The Royal Air Force personnel at Cambridge are billeted in nine colleges. Until the windows of the college rooms had been darkened, ordinary electric lights could not be used in them, but these have now been restored to all the rooms in six of the colleges. The windows of the other three are being darkened as quickly as possible, and all should be completed within 10 days. I regret that while these arrangements were being made the facilities for recreation after dark should have been restricted, but in every college there have always been one or more common rooms with ordinary lighting, and the Cambridge Y.M.C.A. is open to all the men and provides entertainment every night of the week. The University authorities are arranging for the provision of a central club and canteen.

Mr. Adams: Will these men be allowed heating as well as lighting in their rooms?

Sir K. Wood: Certainly.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: Is my right hon. Friend aware that up to date they have not been allowed fires in their rooms?

Mr. Denville: Is my right hon. Friend aware that blue lighting is much better to read by than any other form of lighting?

SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCES.

Flight-Lieut. Grant-Ferris: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that according to King's Regulations and Air Council Instructions, paragraph 3081, personnel are not entitled to subsistence allowance when on active service; and whether, as this is likely to cause considerable hardship, he will take steps to have it amended?

Sir K. Wood: Subsistence allowances are still being paid under normal peacetime regulations to Royal Air Force personnel in the United Kingdom; they are also payable in respect of journeys in France when accommodation and messing cannot be provided under Service arrangements.

Mr. Perkins: Do I understand that these allowances are now being paid?

Sir K. Wood: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Perkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a large number of officers

and men have had nothing since the war broke out?

Sir K. Wood: If my hon. Friend will let me know of any case, I will look into it.

NON-COMMISSIONED OFFICERS (DECORATIONS).

Flight-Lieut. Grant-Ferris: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether airmen and non-commissioned officer pilots are eligible for the award of the Distinguished Flying Cross?

Sir K. Wood: Non-commissioned officer pilots and airmen are, under the terms of the Royal Warrant, eligible to be considered for the Distinguished Flying Medal.

Flight-Lieut. Grant-Ferris: Would it not be an excellent thing if all pilots were eligible for the highest award?

Sir K. Wood: There are certain distinctions, and in this matter I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend will appreciate that there is a certain difference in the responsibility.

Mr. Garro Jones: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what justification he can offer, in the case of a commissioned pilot and a non-commissioned pilot participating in precisely the same enterprise with precisely the same results, for one obtaining the Distinguished Flying Cross and the other obtaining only the Distinguished Flying Medal?

Sir K. Wood: As I have said, there is a difference of responsibility. So far as I know, this matter has never been raised, but if the hon. Member likes I will look into it.

UNSKILLED MEN, ENGINEERING (EARNINGS).

Flight-Lieutenant Grant-Ferris: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that a number of unskilled men have been taken on by the Air Ministry and given a short course in engineering; that in many instances, before the completion of this course, they have been posted to maintenance units and are earning as much as £5 or £6 a week, whereas their teachers, members of the Royal Air Force and highly skilled men, are earning considerably less; and whether he will take steps to modify this


state of affairs which is causing considerable dissatisfaction at the various units concerned?

Sir K. Wood: A number of men who have received training in engineering at Ministry of Labour centres have been entered for employment at maintenance units on work suited to their capacity after a further period of specialised training in Air Force establishments. In the present exceptional circumstances, their normal wages are supplemented in some instances by overtime earnings, but the information available does not suggest that men receive the amounts mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend. I would add that comparison with Air Force emoluments is apt to be misleading, since service personnel receive services in kind and are entitled to non-effective benefits for which civilian personnel are not eligible.

Flight-Lieutenant Grant-Ferris: If I bring actual cases to my right hon. Friend's notice, will he go into them, as I can assure him that there is great dissatisfaction in these units in this connection?

Sir K. Wood: Yes, Sir, I will look into any cases which are brought to my notice.

Mr. George Griffiths: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that none of these wages are brought down, but that the others are brought up?

Sir Robert Young: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to employ skilled men for this work, and not unskilled men?

Sir K. Wood: I have already replied to that question.

Mr. Logan: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that men who have had only six months' training in engineering have been put on the maintenance staff, and skilled engineers have not had that employment given them?

ABBOTSINCH (EXTENSIONS).

Mr. Maxton: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that work on the extensions at Abbotsinch have been stopped, leading to many men becoming unemployed; and whether this is a temporary stoppage or a permanent closing down?

Sir K. Wood: Part of the work in hand at Abbotsinch will be completed. The actual extensions will not be proceeded with, as arrangements have been made elsewhere which will expedite the provision of the facilities required. Considerable construction work is in progress in the neighbourhood, and I hope that the men concerned will find employment there.

SUBSTITUTION OFFICERS, AIR MINISTRY.

Sir A. Southby: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether retired officers of the Royal Air Force who, before the outbreak of war, were being employed at the Air Ministry as substitution officers in the place of officers on the active list, will now be placed on the active list like officers who have been recalled since the outbreak of war?

Sir K. Wood: This matter is at present under consideration.

PRISONERS OF WAR (GERMANY).

Sir Alexander Russell: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether any arrangements have been made for sending clothing, food and medical supplies to Royal Air Force prisoners of war in Germany?

Sir K. Wood: As stated last week by my hon. Friend, the Financial Secretary to the War Office, a permanent scheme for sending parcels to prisoners of war in Germany is under consideration and details will be announced as soon as possible. Interim arrangements have, however, been made by the Air Ministry, and the first consignment of parcels to Royal Air Force prisoners of war was despatched on 20th October. Parcels for individual prisoners of war may be addressed to the Red Cross, c/o The Lord Chamberlain's Office, St. James's Palace, London, S.W.1, for transmission to Germany. I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the Red Cross Society and the Order of St. John for their great assistance in this matter.

Mr. Thorne: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether our prisoners of war in Germany are allowed to send any communications home pointing out how they are being treated there?

Mr. Keeling: Will my right hon. Friend call the attention of the War Office to


these arrangements made for the Royal Air Force, with a view to the War Office hurrying with their permanent arrangements?

Sir K. Wood: I am sure the War Office will do all they can in the matter.

EMPIRE DEFENCE (AIR TRAINING SCHEME).

Sir N. Stewart Sandeman: asked the Secretary of State for Air what steps he is taking in the Crown Colonies and India to develop further their flying organisations, with a view to using them in the war; and whether he is contemplating extending the scheme regarding the utilisation of flying services in the Dominions to the Crown Colonies and India?

Sir K. Wood: Flying facilities will be developed and utilised to the fullest possible extent throughout the Empire, and my hon. Friend may be assured that the question of extending the Air Training Scheme as he suggests will be carefully considered as part of the wider question of making the fullest use of available resources to meet the essential requirements of Empire Defence.

Sir N. Stewart Sandeman: Is it not the case that in India and East Africa an immense number of people are eager to fly and to fight for the Empire?

Sir K. Wood: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for India has already made a statement on the matter.

COMMERCIAL AIR SERVICES.

Sir Ralph Glyn: asked the Secretary of State for Air what civil aviation services have been, or are about to be restored, and, in particular, what steps have been taken to inaugurate a regular bi-weekly service to Scandinavia; and whether special regard will be taken to the importance of transporting newspapers and urgent mail to neutral countries, in view of the regularity of the delivery of German mails and newspapers?

Sir K. Wood: As the reply to the first part of the question can best be given in tabular form, I will, with my hon.

Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. With regard to the second part, it is not at present contemplated to increase the frequency of the existing British weekly service to Scandinavia, but communication by air with Scandinavia will shortly be established on a bi-weekly basis by the inauguration of a Swedish-Norwegian weekly service in addition. A service from Copenhagen, to be operated by Danish Air Lines, has been authorised and will shortly start. The answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative.

Following is the table:

A. BRITISH COMMERCIAL AIR SERVICES BETWEEN THIS COUNTRY AND ABROAD.

In Operation.

(i) Restricted Empire Air Mail Services:

Hythe—Sydney. (Twice per week in each direction by flying boat.)

Hythe—Durban. (Once per week in each direction by flying boat.)

Hythe—Kisumu. (Once per week in. each direction by flying boat.)

(ii) Landplane service to Egypt:

Heston—Calcutta. (Once per week in each direction until 30th October, 1939, after which service will be twice weekly in each direction.)

(iii) Perth—Stavanger—Stockholm—Helsinki. (Once weekly in each direction by landplane.)

(iv) Heston—Le Bourget. (Once daily in each direction in conjunction with Air France.)

In Prospect.

(v) United Kingdom—Lisbon. (By land-plane or flying boat as circumstances may require.)

B. OTHER COMMERCIAL AIR SERVICES BETWEEN7 THIS COUNTRY AND ABROAD.

In Operation.

(vi) Le Bourget—Heston. (Once daily in each direction operated by Air France; in conjunction with British Service.)

(vii) Brussels—Shoreham. (Once on weekdays in each direction operated by SABENA.)

(viii) Amsterdam—Shoreham. (Once daily in each direction operated by K.L.M.)

(ix) Dublin—Liverpool. (Once daily in each direction operated by Aer Lingus Teoranta.)

In Prospect.

(x) Aberdeen—Stavanger—Stockholm—Helsinki. (Once weekly in each direction, to be operated jointly by A.B. Aerotransport and Det Norske Luftfartselskap.)

(xi) Copenhagen — Amsterdam—Shoreham. (Once weekly in each direction, to be operated by Det Danske Luftfartselskab.)

C. COMMERCIAL AIR SERVICES IN THE UNITED KINGDOM.

In Operation.

(xii) Renfrew—Campbeltown—Islay. (Once daily on weekdays in each direction operated by Scottish Airways, Limited.)

(xiii) Inverness—Wick (or Thurso)—Kirkwall. (Once daily on weekdays in each direction operated by Scottish Airways, Limited.)

(xiv) Kirkwall—Sumburgh (Lerwick). (Twice weekly operated by Scottish Airways, Limited.)

(xv) Lands End—Scilly Isles. (On demand operated by Great Western and Southern Air Lines, Limited.)

(xvi) Aberdeen—Wick (or Thurso)—Kirkwall (or Stromness). (Four days a week in each direction operated by Allied Airways (Gandar Dower), Limited.)

(xvii) Kirkwall—Sumburgh (Lerwick). (Twice weekly operated by Allied Airways (Gandar Dower), Limited.)

(xviii) Kirkwall—Thurso. (Once daily operated by Scottish Airways, Limited.)

(xix) Shoreham—Channel Islands. (Twice daily in each direction, one for mails and one for passengers, operated by Jersey Airways, Limited.)

About to Start.

(xx) Weston-super-Mare—Cardiff. (Western Airways, Limited. Hourly service during daylight.)

In Prospect.

(xxi) Liverpool—Isle of Man:

(xxii) Isle of Man—Belfast:

Proposals awaited from Isle of Man Airways, Limited.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL EMPIRE.

WEST INDIES (ELECTIONS).

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is considering a proposal for the postponement of the elections for any of the legislative bodies and local authorities in the West Indian Colonies?

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): No proposal of this kind has been put before me.

Mr. Creech Jones: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the suggestion has been made that there should be an extension in Jamaica for another term, and in that case would he consider that it should be for the duration of the war rather than for another period of five years?

Mr. MacDonald: If and when the suggestion is put before me, I will bear in mind the hon. Member's point.

JAMAICA.

Mr. Riley: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the present scale of income taxation in operation in Jamaica; whether, in addition to the standard Income Tax scale there is a Super-tax; and, further, what was the total amount of the income of persons in

Jamaica liable for Income Tax assessment; and the total receipt of standard and Super-tax for the last completed financial year?

Mr. M. MacDonald: As the reply is rather long and contains many figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Riley: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the rates of Income Tax now operating in Jamaica are adequate for the existing situation, in view of the fact that at the present time on an income of £1,000 a person pays £17 as against £127 in this country for a single man?

Mr. MacDonald: Proposals for considerable increases in Income Tax in Jamaica are at present before the Legislative Council there, and I very much hope that they will be accepted early.

Following is the answer:

The present rates of Income Tax in Jamaica are as follow:


On the first £300 of income
Nil.

On every pound of the income beyond—

s.
d.


£300 and up to £400

2½


£400 and up to £500

3


£500 and up to £750

6


£750 and up to £1,000

9


£1,000 and up to £1,500
1
3¾


£1,500 and up to £2,000
1
9


£2,000 and up to £5,000
2
2¼


£5,000 and up to £8,000
3
0


£8,000 and up to £10,000
3
6


On every pound beyond £10,000
4
0

There is no separate Super-tax in addition to this scale.

The total of the gross incomes assessed for the year of assessment 1937 amounted to £4,029,946, and the total Income Tax receipts for the financial year ending 31st March, 1938, were £101,650.

Proposals at present before the Legislative Council of Jamaica provide for considerable upward revision of the present rates of Income Tax.

Mr. Riley: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many civil servants in the service of the Government of Jamaica have been transferred from civilian service to war service; and whether, in the case of any such transference, steps have been taken to provide new officials for the posts vacated?

Mr. MacDonald: I have not the information for which the hon. Member asks. But I am satisfied that the Governor is fully alive to the importance of maintaining essential Government services at as high a level as the exigencies of the local situation in war permits.

SOCIAL SERVICES AND WELFARE WORK.

Mr. Riley: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the findings of the Nutrition Committee, he can give an assurance that the welfare, social, and medical services in the Colonies will not be arrested or diminished because of war expenditure or war conditions?

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is the policy of the Government during the period of war to develop and improve the existing social services in the Colonial Empire?

Mr. M. MacDonald: I cannot yet add to the answer which I gave to a similar question by the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones) on nth October.

Mr. Sorensen: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he is likely to make a statement in regard to this matter?

Mr. MacDonald: I cannot make any statement until I am ready to make a comprehensive one, as a great many factors are involved, and it will take a little time to get the matter straightened out, but I am getting ahead with the examination of this question as rapidly as I can.

SIERRA LEONE (DETENTION ORDER).

Mr. Paling: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what were the actions of Mr. Wallace Johnson which, as being likely to be prejudicial to public safety or defence, led to his detention under a Sierra Leone defence regulation?

Mr. M. MacDonald: Mr. Wallace Johnson's objections to the Detention Order have now been heard, in accordance with the Regulations, by a committee which consists of the acting Chief Justice, a senior administrative officer, and one of the unofficial members of the Legislative Council. I understand that the committee are preparing their report for presentation to the Governor. In these circumstances I think it is undesirable for me to make any comment at present on the case.

Mr. Paling: If I put a question down later, when these reports have been submitted to the right hon. Gentleman, I suppose I shall get an answer?

Mr. Shinwell: What was the action which led to this man's detention?

Mr. MacDonald: The detention was under an Order which gave the Governor power to detain him in order to prevent him from taking action detrimental to the safety of the State. We are working under very similar machinery in the Colonies to that which has been set up here, and while the matter is under consideration by this committee it would be undesirable for me to make a comment of the kind asked for.

Mr. Maxton: Surely the Governor has formulated certain charges against this man? Cannot the right hon. Gentleman tell us what the charges are which this man has to meet before the committee of inquiry?

Mr. MacDonald: These matters are being considered in confidence by the committee of inquiry. When it is possible to make a public statement on the matter I shall not have any hesitation in doing so.

Mr. Creech Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman keep in mind that at least one member of the investigating committee is one of the most bitter opponents of Mr. Wallace Johnson?

Mr. MacDonald: I cannot accept that.

Mr. Sorensen: Does not the right hon. Gentleman believe that the powers which this Governor is exercising bear a remarkable resemblance to those of a dictator?

Mr. MacDonald: I can only say that these are powers which have been accepted in this country by, I think, the whole House.

Hon. Members: No!

Mr. Stephen: Is this the kind of democracy we are fighting for?

LABOUR CONDITIONS.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what action he has taken, or intends to take, to secure that the wages and conditions of labour


in the Colonial Empire shall not be adversely affected through the incidence of the war; and whether increased recruitment of natives for His Majesty's Army is taking place?

Mr. M. MacDonald: Considerable progress has been made in recent years with the enactment of labour legislation in the Colonial Empire and with the establishment of labour departments and inspectorates charged with the supervision of labour conditions and the welfare of the workers. Progress will be continued along these lines so far as circumstances permit. As regards the second part of the question, I would refer to the answer which I gave on 19th October to a question by the hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. Guest), of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy.

Mr. Sorensen: Will the more comprehensive statement pay special reference to the questions of wages and working conditions?

Mr. MacDonald: In any further statement I will certainly be willing to expand on the present answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

PARCEL DELIVERIES (RAILWAYS).

Mr. Benjamin Smith: asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the delays in the delivery of parcels by the railways as a result of the extra traffic thrown upon them because of the restrictions placed upon road transport; that these delays are holding up work and causing unemployment; and what steps he is taking to remedy the matter so that road transport may play its full part in keeping the industries of the country running efficiently?

The Minister of Transport (Captain Wallace): The war has inevitably thrown a heavy burden on the railways and made some degree of delay unavoidable, but no specific cases of any special delays in the delivery of parcels whether as a result of extra traffic or otherwise have been brought to my notice. If it is the case that there are delays of this character which are holding up work and causing unemployment I should be glad to have particulars. Subject to the overriding

need for rationing the consumption of imported fuel, all possible steps are being taken to enable road transport to play its full part in keeping the industry of the country running efficiently.

Mr. Smith: If I submit details to the right hon. Gentleman will he undertake to go into them?

Captain Wallace: Certainly.

RAILWAY YARDS AND SIGNAL BOXES (LIGHTING).

Mr. Dobbie: asked the Minister of Transport what decision has been reached on the urgent question of the relaxation of lighting restrictions in railway shunting yards and signal boxes?

Captain Wallace: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on 18th October to my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) on the subject of lighting in shunting yards. With regard to the lighting of signal boxes, no specific cases of difficulty had been brought to my notice until I received the hon. Member's letter yesterday. I am having inquiries made immediately into all the cases he has cited.

Mr. Dobbie: While thanking the Minister for his reply, may I ask, in view of the fact that he has had the question before him some time and of the fact that accidents, fatal and otherwise, are increasing in shunting yards and that the strain on the men in signal boxes is considerably increased, whether he can do something to expedite the inquiry?

Captain Wallace: We are expediting it by every means we can. Nobody is keener than I am that the extra strain on all classes of railway employés should be relieved as soon as and as much as possible. I am sure that the hon. Member will be the first to recognise that there are important considerations to take into account before making alterations in the black-out.

Mr. Dobbie: Now we have an assurance that the inquiry is being expedited, can we have an assurance that the decision will be expedited?

Captain Wallace: As much as possible.

CRAWLEY BY-PASS (TREE PLANTING).

Brigadier-General Clifton Brown: asked the Minister of Transport whether


he is aware that flowering shrubs and rose trees enclosed in iron and wire fencing are being planted along the Crawley By-Pass by the road employés; and whether, in view of the war situation and the necessity of economising on unproductive work he will postpone for the present all work on the roads that is not helping to win the war?

Captain Wallace: The shrubs and trees in question were purchased by the West Sussex County Council, as my agents for the construction of the Crawley By-Pass, some months before the war started. The planting out is taking place now because this is the proper season. As regards the second part of the question the policy of the Ministry in regard to unfinished road works is that they will only be completed if this proves to be the most economical way of dealing with them, or if they can be shown to be essential in the national interest.

Brigadier-General Brown: Is it in the national interest to use rabbit wire and iron posts in this way when they are difficult to obtain for food production and other things, and does my right hon. and gallant Friend really think that it is in the national interest that this work should be done at this time?

Captain Wallace: I do not believe that the amount of rabbit wire required will put a great strain on the national effort.

Brigadier-General Brown: Is not my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that it is not possible to get a great deal of rabbit wire, and does not work such as this make null and void the appeals of the Minister of Agriculture to farmers to increase food production?

LOCATION OF INDUSTRY (COMMISSION'S REPORT).

Mr. A. Edwards: asked the Prime Minister whether the Royal Commission on the Location of Industry intends to make an early report; and, if not, will he state the cause of delay?

The Prime Minister: I understand that the report is now being signed, but, for the reason which I gave the hon. Member on 27th September, I cannot fix any date for its printing or publication. I do

not think that the time taken by the Commission in its preparation is unreasonable, having regard to the range and difficulty of the subject.

Mr. Edwards: Can the Prime Minister give any indication whether it is intended to have the report published at an early date, or does he intend not to publish it during the war?

The Prime Minister: I have already explained that in present circumstances the pressure of urgent work more directly connected with the war precludes the printing and publication.

Mr. Edwards: Are we to understand that it is not to be published until the war is ended?

The Prime Minister: I did not say that, but we cannot publish it while there is the pressure of other work more connected with the war.

Mr. Isaacs: Is not the Prime Minister aware that there are thousands of printers out of work who would be glad of a job now?

Mr. Woodburn: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree, in view of the fact that the peace we hope for will come at an early date, that this question of the location of industry is of fundamental importance to places like Scotland which is concentrating on heavy industry and will be faced with tremendous unemployment immediately peace comes?

Colonel Baldwin-Webb: Should not the war effort be taken into account before any such report is printed and published?

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

HERRING.

Sir Joseph Leech: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether as herring are now in their most nutritious condition, and having regard to the economic food conditions now prevailing, he will make widely known the most economical methods of cooking herring and particularly the methods of removing the bone before cooking to eliminate waste?

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. W. S. Morrison): The question of encouraging, with the assistance of existing agencies, the economical use


of essential articles of food is receiving the close attention of my Department. I understand that excellent advice on the matter to which my hon. Friend refers is contained in "The New Herring Book" issued by the Herring Industry Board to the trade, the schools, and the general public.

Mr. Loftus: Is my right hon. Friend aware that at the present moment there is a glut of herring in Yarmouth and Lowestoft, and that boats are being held in port because there is no market for the fish; and will he take steps to encourage the use of herring so as to allow the boats to go to sea at the present period?

Mr. Morrison: I shall be very glad to do anything in my power to encourage the use of this valuable food.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Will my right hon. Friend, as representing the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence, invite all the Service Departments to use the maximum quantity of herring?

Mr. John Morgan: Will the Minister undertake to clear these stocks of herring from Lowestoft and Yarmouth?

Mr. A. Reed: Will the Minister suggest to his right hon. Friends in the Army, Navy and Air Force that they should take more herring?

Mr. Loftus: Will my right hon. Friend give me the opportunity of showing him a telegram I have received?

MEAT CONTROL.

Colonel Baldwin-Webb: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will consider the recasting of the Meat Control Scheme in England; and whether he will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement as to the sites of slaughter houses, the area served by each, the names of the meat executive officers and the rates of salary?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I can undertake that in any locality in which it is found that the arrangements made under the Meat Control Scheme do not operate satisfatcorily, those arrangements will be reconsidered. In view of the large number of selected slaughter-houses, in England and Wales, my hon. and gallant Friend will perhaps agree that a statement of the sites of each slaughterhouse and of the area served by each as well as a list

of the names of the personnel would be too lengthy to circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I will, however, arrange for a list of the selected slaughterhouses to be placed in the Library of the House of Commons.

Colonel Baldwin-Webb: May I ask when that will be, and whether in the scheme which my right hon. Friend now envisages he will permit the continuance of slaughtering at Wellington and other towns in Shropshire which have been put out by his Department?

Mr. Morrison: The list will be available as soon as possible. I am reconsidering the second matter mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend.

Sir Herbert Williams: Does this mean that Smithfield is shortly to be reopened?

Mr. Morrison: No, Sir.

Mr. Levy: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the meat control is working satisfactorily?

Mr. Benjamin Smith: Is the Minister aware of the amount of difficulty to which butchers are put, having first to go to market to buy their offal and then not being allowed to collect after four o'clock in the day the allocations of meat made to them? Will he consider in his control supplying to butchers meat of the type they have been used to serving to their customers owing to the fact that many people cannot afford the higher prices of English meat?

Mr. Morrison: If the hon. Member will give me particulars I will gladly reconsider it.

Mr. Stephen: Owing to the abandonment of the fish scheme will the Minister consider the abandonment of the meat scheme?

Mr. J. Morgan: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what quantity of meat has been handled by the 10 meat depots in the outer London distributing areas since they were established; and what staffs are maintained, including their numbers?

Mr. Morrison: I have made inquiries from the London Wholesale Meat Supply Association and have been informed that the quantity of meat handled in the 10 meat emergency depots in outer London distributing areas since they were established at the outbreak of war amounts


to 3,773 tons. The total staff at these depots is at present 631 persons, of whom 206 occupy executive and clerical posts. The staffs are being drawn upon as the need arises at the inner depots. I understand that these men were employed in the London wholesale meat trade before the war; that their salaries and wages, which are equivalent to 0.0875 pence per lb. of the meat being handled by the Association, are met by economies affected in other directions, and that consequently no cost falls on the taxpayer nor any additional cost on the consumer on account of the staffs of these depots.

Mr. Morgan: Does not the Minister realise that figures which show that only five tons per person were handled over a period of seven weeks point to a complete redundancy of staff?

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Member is dividing the total staff, including clerical and executive workers, into the total amount of meat.

Mr. Morgan: Of course.

Mr. Morrison: If the hon. Member gives me further particulars, perhaps I can examine his calculations at leisure.

Mr. Morgan: But did not the Minister tell us that a certain number of tons of meat were handled and so many persons were employed, and is it not very simple to divide the one by the other?

POTATO SALES.

Sir R. Glyn: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will reconsider the decision that potato growers may no longer continue to sell to retailers and consumers; and why, since the existing custom of direct sale was continued by the Potato Marketing Scheme, he insists on the whole trade being placed in the hands of the authorised merchants, thus increasing cost of transport and destroying direct retail supply by farmers on well-established lines?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: There has been no decision that potato growers should not continue to sell to retailers and consumers, or that the whole trade should be placed in the hands of the authorised merchants. Apart from the issue of Maximum Prices Orders, no steps have yet been taken to control in any way the trade in potatoes.

Mr. Graham White: Is the Minister fully seized of the fact that a decision of the kind referred to would be regarded with the very gravest apprehension by the trade itself?

Mr. Morrison: No such decision has been taken, and no such decision will be taken without further examination.

MILLERS AND BAKERS.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the relationship between the London Employment Joint Price Committee of the Baking Trade and the Millers Mutual Association?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I am informed that there is no connection between the two bodies referred to by. my hon. Friend.

Mr. De la Bère: Is my right hon. Friend quite sure of that, because I so often wonder whether his information is entirely reliable?

Mr. Morrison: In order to obtain this information I asked both the bodies in question, and they both assured me that neither has any connection with the other.

BREAD (PRICE).

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will give an assurance that he will not sanction an increase in the price of bread in the provinces without an independent inquiry as distinct from the joint price committees which may be set up?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answers which I gave to the questions he put to me on nth October. I do not follow his allusion to "joint price committees which may be set up."

Mr. De la Bère: Can my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that never again shall the milling combine be allowed to manoeuvre and manipulate the price of bread? What has become of the Food Council and who is protecting the consumer to-day?

Mr. Morrison: I can give the hon. Member an assurance that no one will be allowed to manipulate and manoeuvre the people's food.

BUTTER, BACON AND SUGAR.

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he has given consideration to the correspondence complaining of the reduced supplies of butter, bacon, sugar, etc., forwarded to him by the hon. Member for Stoke; and what action is to be taken to prevent the causes that have given rise to these complaints?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: Yes, Sir, the correspondence related to supplies to an industrial co-operative society, and I should like to make it clear that there is no discrimination by my Department as between supplies to such societies and supplies to other traders. As regards the articles referred to, supplies of butter and bacon have recently been below normal; consequently it has been necessary to reduce allocations to all distributors alike. Sugar supplies have also been impartially distributed.

Mr. G. Griffiths: Why did the Minister tell the public that we are only to get three ounces of meat a little later on?

MARGARINE.

Mr. J. Morgan: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he intends to fix one standard quality and price for margarine; and can he state the grounds for such a decision?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: All the margarine now being produced is of a standard quality and is being retailed at a standard price of 6d. per lb. Owing to the shortage of butter, it was necessary to increase the output of margarine. The adoption of a standard quality promotes rapid and efficient production and distribution of a good quality article at a reasonable price. I am, however, giving the matter further consideration in the light of existing circumstances.

Mr. Morgan: Will this be the quality of margarine that the Minister has in mind for rationing, and will the effect be to raise the price to the poorest people from 4d. to 6d.?

Mr. Morrison: As I said at the end of my answer, I am giving this matter further consideration.

Mr. A. V. Alexander: May I ask the Minister not to be led entirely by those who are influenced mainly by advertising revenue?

Sir H. Williams: Is there any reason why the only standard should be the standard of the co-operative societies?

Mr. Alexander: Will the Minister bear in mind that that interruption is entirely irrelevant, because the standard imposed by the Government is the Government's standard and the standard of no one else?

Mr. Morgan: How can this margarine be co-operative margarine if the Van den Bergh interests are controlling the price?

DIVISIONAL ORGANISATION.

Mr. Garro Jones: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster the total cost in salaries of £250 per annum and above of the divisional food organisation, including the organisations for London and the home counties; and when he anticipates he will be in a position to make his contemplated review of these appointments?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: The answer to the first part of the question is £93,850. This figure, which relates only to Great Britain, excludes the salaries of 31 chief clerks and accountants serving in divisional food offices who have been seconded from other Government Departments by whom their salaries will continue to be paid. It also excludes the salaries of nine civil servants on the staff of the Chief Divisional Food Office for Scotland who have been similarly seconded. I do not propose to undertake a general review of these appointments at present since it would be undesirable to make avoidable changes in this stage of food control.

Mr. Garro Jones: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any undertaking as to when this review will take place, particularly having regard to the advanced age of a considerable number of the heads of the divisional organisation?

Mr. Morrison: I can assure the hon. Member that this matter will be kept under constant review with a view to ensuring officiency, but I hope the hon. Member will appreciate my desire to avoid making changes at this particular moment.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: Will the right hon. Gentleman give some immediate guidance to the local authorities as to the attitude of the Ministry towards the


suggestion that many of these appointments should be given to public servants at part salaries—additional payment to what they are having at the present time?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I will consider what the hon. Member has said.

Mr. Maxton: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think this is a somewhat heavy price to pay for the reduction in the quantity of our butter and the increase in the price of our margarine?

Mr. Morrison: Everything is under review.

MAIZE.

Mr. A. Edwards: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster why the Cereals Board have issued instructions not to release maize for the manufacture of glucose; and whether maize is being released to provender millers for cattle-food?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: Arrangements have now been made for the allocation of maize for the manufacture of glucose to meet urgent needs. The quantity will depend upon the supply of maize available. The reply to the last part of the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative.

Mr. Edwards: Is it not the case that many complaints have been received from manufacturers, who have been held up because they have not been able to obtain glucose; and is the chairman of the Cereals Board the owner of the largest provender mills?

Mr. Morrison: I should like notice of those questions.

DEVELOPMENT OF RESOURCES, SCOTLAND.

Mr. Kirkwood: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what further measures he proposes to develop the agricultural riches of Scotland in view of the national emergency; and in particular to enable Scottish farms to produce all the milk, eggs, meat, fruit and vegetables which, together with the abundant supplies of fish from Scottish waters, will supply all the food that Scotland needs?

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Captain McEwen): As the hon. Member will be aware, the Government have already taken measures for bringing under the plough a large additional

acreage of land in Scotland in order to increase the production of human food and feeding-stuffs for domestic stock. It is too early to estimate the success of these efforts, but the Government are fully alive to the importance of using the natural resources of the land in Scotland in full measure, and they will continue to take any practicable steps to this end. If the hon. Member has any specific suggestions to make on the subject of his question my right hon. Friend will be very happy to consider them.

Mr. Kirkwood: Arising from that reply, may I ask the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland how many acres are now under consideration?

Captain McEwen: I could not say in respect of this year, but for 1940 it is about 260,000 acres.

FEEDING-STUFFS.

Colonel Burton: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster under whose authority purveyors of feeding-stuffs are now declining to sell middlings unless same is mixed with other ingredients; and whether he will take steps to prevent the continuance of this practice?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: There is nothing to prevent sellers of feeding-stuffs from selling middlings unmixed with other ingredients and I have been unable to confirm that as a general practice they are declining to do so.

Colonel Burton: If I bring instances to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman will he have them investigated?

Mr. Morrison: If the hon. Member gives me any particulars I shall be very glad to look into them.

COTTON INDUSTRY (FARINACEOUS PRODUCTS).

Mr. Sutcliffe: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he is aware that many firms in the cotton industry which are engaged on urgent Government orders and on export orders which will provide foreign exchange are being held up for lack of farinaceous products; and if he will take steps to ensure that adequate provision is made for the cotton industry in this respect


before supplies are allocated to less essential purposes such as the manufacture of adhesives for packing confectionery and other luxury products?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: Arrangements are being made to allocate raw material for the manufacture of starch and to regulate the imports of starch into this country. The supplies available will be allocated in accordance with the needs of industry and full regard will be paid to the requirements of the export industries including the cotton industry.

Mr. Sutcliffe: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that chocolate manufacturers appear to be able to get a plentiful supply for the decoration of chocolate boxes, while the vital industries are being starved for lack of this material?

Mr. Morrison: As I have said in my answer, steps are being taken to make as good an allocation as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

FINANCIAL CONTROL.

Mr. E. Smith: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been directed to paragraphs 23 to 26 of the second report of the Committee of Public Accounts regretting that definite results in the improvement of financial control have not been achieved, that coordination is lacking, and relevant documents mislaid, and urging that this should be treated as an immediate matter of pressing importance; the explanation of this state of affairs; whether the Treasury have now been consulted; and what steps have been taken to deal with the matter?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Shakespeare): Yes, Sir. The Departmental Committee referred to in paragraph 23 of the second report of the Public Accounts Committee presented their report on 4th August last. Before doing so, the Committee had the benefit of consultation with representatives of the Treasury. I understand that in accordance with normal procedure, the questions raised by the Public Accounts Committee, and the conclusions reached by the Departmental Committee, will be dealt with in the Treasury minute on the report of the Public Accounts Committee.

Mr. Smith: In view of the serious statements made in this report, is the hon. Gentleman now satisfied that all inquiries were made?

Mr. Shakespeare: The committee over which I presided examined the criticisms made and made certain suggestions for improving the control. Those are now before the Treasury, and when the Treasury has reported I think the hon. Gentleman will be satisfied.

Sir Irving Albery: Do I understand from the answer of my hon. Friend that no improvement has yet been made in Treasury control?

Mr. Shakespeare: I said that criticisms had been made and that certain suggestions had also been made for improving control.

Sir I. Albery: Do I understand that none of them are yet in force?

Mr. Shakespeare: Oh, yes. Those suggestions have gone to the Treasury, and it is for the Treasury to deal with them in a Minute and to lay the Minute on the Table.

Mr. Jagger: Have they done so, and, if not, when will they do so?

HIS MAJESTY'S SHIP "ROYAL OAK" (INQUIRY).

Sir A. Southby: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty when he expects to be in a position to make a further statement to the House regarding the loss of His Majesty's ship "Royal Oak"?

Mr. Lambert: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can, consistently with the public interest, state the result of the inquiry instituted into the sinking of the "Royal Oak"?

The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Churchill): The inquiry into the causes of the loss of His Majesty's ship "Royal Oak" is now taking place as speedily as possible, but I cannot say when I shall be in a position to make a further statement as a result of the inquiry. I hope next week.

Mr. Lambert: Will my right hon. Friend make another statement as to the result?

Mr. Churchill: Yes, Sir; I will make another statement, but I shall have to be very careful not to disclose information which might be useful to other parties.

Sir A. Southby: While safeguarding the public interest, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the very grave apprehension there is in the public mind regarding this matter?

Mr. Churchill: Yes, Sir, I will certainly bear that in mind.

Mr. Ammon: Is the committee of inquiry taking into consideration the fact that so large a number of men were drowned in harbour?

Sir Charles Cayzer: Has the attention of my right hon. Friend been called to the statement made by the German U-boat commander himself that he waited for two days outside the harbour watching the tracks of vessels before he decided to go in?

Mr. Churchill: Yes, Sir, I have seen a number of statements made by the German U-boat commander. In part they are a repetition of information which I have given to the House, and in part they have no relation to the facts.

Mr. Ammon: Is attention being given to the fact that these men were drowned in harbour?

Mr. Churchill: Yes, Sir, but in relation to Scapa Flow, "harbour" is not quite the right term, because it is a great landlocked bay many miles across. This ship was several miles from any other vessel.

TRAWLERS (REQUISITIONING).

Mr. Windsor: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the economic distress caused in Hull by the requisitioning of trawlers, he will consider the advisability of constructing new craft for Admiralty purposes, especially as the time required for such construction would be no greater than that demanded for the adaptation of old craft and would thus minimise the existing dislocation of the Hull fishing industry?

Mr. Churchill: New craft are being built for Admiralty purposes, but the time required for new construction is considerably greater than that required for conversion.

TORPEDOED SHIPS (SURVIVORS' LEAVE).

Lieut.-Commander Tufnell: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will consider the granting of leave to

survivors of any warship which may happen to be torpedoed during the present war?

Mr. Churchill: It is the intention of the Admiralty that the survivors of any of His Majesty's ships which may be sunk during the war, should be granted a period of leave before they are drafted to other duty. Leave was so given to the survivors of His Majesty's Ship "Courageous" and His Majesty's Ship "Royal Oak" and this practice will be continued, provided the manning situation permits.

BOYS (ACTIVE SERVICE).

Dr. Edith Summerskill: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many boys between 14 and 18 years of age have been killed or wounded or are missing; how many of this age are now serving in the Navy; and whether he will agree to withdraw those who are exposed to danger and replace them by men?

Mr. Sorensen: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will consider the withdrawal of boys serving in His Majesty's Navy from active service at sea during the war?

Mr. Churchill: There are just under 5,000 boys under 18 years of age serving at sea, of whom 137 have been casualties. The Navy is a voluntary service and secures a large part of its personnel by the recruitment of continuous service boys between the ages of 15 and 16½. The consent of their parents is obtained before entry. Training at sea is an essential part of a boy's training, and the great majority of these boys go to sea from the age of 17 upwards. There they perform the task appropriate to their age and training and form an essential part of the ship's company. It is not proposed to alter a system which has been the traditional method of providing personnel for the Navy. In future, however, the consent of the parents will be obtained if, in an exceptional case, the boy's training at sea will start below the age of 17.

Dr. Summerskill: In view of the fact that modern naval warfare endangers the lives of these boys, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the Navy should come into line with the other Services, which do not send boys upon active service under the age of 18; further can the right hon. Gentleman


reconcile his answer with the fact that the Government have removed boys of 15 and 16 years of age out of danger into reception areas?

Mr. Churchill: I have considered the matter very carefully. As I say, we have 5,000 boys who are an essential part of the complement of the Fleet at the moment. By making the proposal that, before the age of 17, boys may be prevented from going to sea if their parents so desire, I am making a new departure which adds to some extent to the burdens of manning.

Mr. Sorensen: While expressing my appreciation of the explanation which the right hon. Gentleman has given, may I ask whether he can make the age at which a parent can withdraw these boys higher than 17 years of age?

FRAUDULENT SOLICITORS.

Sir Joseph Leech: asked the Attorney-General whether he will consult with the Law Society to ensure that the Bill which will be offered to Parliament for the protection of the public against a continuation of losses by fraudulent solicitors should include provisions to prevent the creation of sole-partner firms of solicitors and to control more rigidly the operations of existing sole-partner firms until the latter are amalgamated with other firms or become extinct by retirement?

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): As I stated in answer to a question on 23rd November, 1938, the Law Society had considered this proposal, but did not regard it as expedient. Since that date, the proposal was raised before the Joint Select Committee when the Bill of this Session was being considered, and they did not recommend it.

Sir Annesley Somerville: asked the Attorney-General whether he is aware that it is now 10 years since the attention of the Law Society was, by the introduction of a private Member's Bill, drawn to the need for the society to stop the continually-recurring frauds by solicitors on their clients, and that no legislation promoted by the Law Society has yet provided the safeguards; and will he therefore introduce a Government Bill to protect the public before more solicitors are convicted of defrauding their clients?

The Attorney-General: The Bill introduced this Session was submitted to and considered by a Joint Select Committee. That committee made a thorough examination of the whole subject and made recommendations going outside the Bill introduced. As I stated in answer to a question by my hon. Friend on nth October, 1939, the Law Society are proposing at the earliest practicable moment to introduce a Bill as amended by the Joint Select Committee. My Noble Friend sees no reason for introducing a Government Bill on this matter.

Sir A. Somerville: In view of the fact that the Bill was withdrawn on the plea that there was not Parliamentary time, is it not the fact that Parliament has had time to deal with this matter?

The Attorney-General: The Joint Select Committee, as the hon. Gentleman knows, made various recommendations which went far beyond or largely beyond the original proposals in the Bill. In view of that fact, the Law Society did not think it was practicable to proceed with the Bill with the alterations and complete all its stages this Session.

Major Milner: Is it not the fact that the Law Society would be only too happy to introduce this Bill at any moment they are able to do so?

The Attorney-General: Yes, Sir, that is what I have stated.

INCOME TAX (ARREARS).

Mr. Logan: asked the Attorney-General whether he is satisfied that in cases where Income Tax payers in arrears apply to the bench for consideration the magistrates have now power to deal with such applications under the Courts Emergency Powers Acts; and whether he intends to give them further powers by legislation?

The Attorney-General: The question whether the Courts Emergency Powers Act binds the Crown is one of law which may be raised before the courts. The existing provisions and practice in connection with the collection of taxes give full opportunity for meeting the difficulties of taxpayers where special hardship due to the war is involved. Magistrates in summary proceedings for Income Tax


are bound to consider the circumstances of the defendant before any order for payment can be enforced.

Mr. Logan: Do I take the Attorney-General definitely to mean that in every case with regard to arrears there will be the right of a complainant to go to the court and ask the magistrate to exercise his discretionary powers?

The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman's question deals with summary proceedings before the magistrate. In those cases, quite apart from the Act referred to, the magistrates are bound to make inquiries with regard to the circumstances of the defendant. There are other cases, and the hon. Gentleman will see in my answer a statement showing that the existing provisions stand in connection with the collection of taxes by whatever means, and full opportunity will be given for meeting the difficulties of the taxpayers.

Mr. Logan: Will the Attorney-General answer what I requested? He has not answered my question.

DIVORCE CASES.

Mr. Lipson: asked the Attorney-General whether he is aware that the present practice by which all divorce cases outside the poor persons limit are heard only in London, is causing great inconvenience and loss of time to witnesses called to give evidence, and especially to medical superintendents of mental hospitals summoned to give evidence under the Matrimonial Causes Act; and will he arrange for divorce cases outside the poor persons limit to be tried at local assizes?

The Attorney-General: The divorce cases which may be heard at assizes are not only those in which poor persons are engaged, but all those which are undefended. The question whether defended cases should be capable of being heard at assizes has been frequently considered. It is not possible in present circumstances to arrange for this to be done.

Mr. Lipson: May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether, owing to the calls which are now being made upon people, he will consider introducing a change of this kind; and, further, can

he give an assurance to the House that there is no vested interest in certain members of the Bar?

The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. The difficulties are largely those of accommodation, procedure and the existing pressure of assize work. While I appreciate what my hon. Friend says with regard to the effect of the war on one side of the problem, I think he will appreciate that the war has also depleted the staffs and put extra work upon those engaged in the administration of justice, and it would be impracticable to contemplate the changes which this suggestion would involve at this time.

AIR-RAID WARNINGS.

Mr. Attlee: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Air whether in accordance with the Prime Minister's undertaking, the Government have now reviewed the circumstances in which air-raid warnings are given?

Sir K. Wood: Yes, Sir. The House will be aware that orders to sound public air-raid warnings are given by the Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Fighter Command. There are two possible lines of policy. One is to have the public warnings sounded in any district over which an approaching aircraft may pass, and to do so on all occasions; the other is to do so only when, in the judgment of the Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief, an air attack on the district is probable. The first alternative would result in frequent interruption of industrial activity, often without any real need. The other involves an element of risk, but recent experience shows that it is the right policy to adopt.
The House will realise that it is not the sounding of a public warning that brings our active defences into operation. This is done by quite other means. It follows that action against the enemy may be in progress without an air-raid warning having been sounded in the locality. If this occurs, the civil population should keep indoors, away from windows and preferably on the lower floors, so as to avoid being hit by falling fragments of shells or bullets. They should stay there until they judge from the cessation of firing that the fighting is


over. Should the Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief consider that the enemy is likely to develop an attack on the district, the air-raid warnings will be sounded and the action that normally follows will be taken. The Government have considered whether the police or some other local authority could be authorised to sound public warnings at discretion if they hear anti-aircraft fire or observe an air battle going on. Air attacks can, however, change their nature and direction so rapidly that no local authority can possibly have a comprehensive and continuous view of the situation which is possessed by the Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief. The Government would regard the sounding of independent local warnings as definitely unsafe.
To sum up: the air defence of Great Britain must be controlled by the Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Fighter Command, who directs this defence and he must also be responsible for bringing the civil defences into operation, including the sounding of public warnings. This officer will exercise his discretion in accordance with the general line of policy I have indicated. He has the fullest confidence of His Majesty's Government.

Mr. Mathers: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if the undertaking given by the Prime Minister, that the question of trains upon the Forth Bridge during the air raid on the 16th of this month would be looked into, has been complied with and whether a decision has been arrived at?

Sir K. Wood: I have not dealt with that in the statement to-day. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put down the question and I will answer it.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: The statement of the right hon. Gentleman indicates something of a change in procedure that we did not expect. Will he give an assurance that in the light of his experience he will be ready to reconsider the system which he has unfolded to the House?

Brigadier-General Sir Henry Croft: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the question, may I ask whether it is not the fact that if unnecessary warnings are given this is exactly the object of the enemy, and is he aware that his statement will be received with great relief throughout the country?

Mr. Garro Jones: In order to prevent any public outcry against the policy which he has just announced, will the right hon. Gentleman cause a full explanation to be published of the complete disorganisation which would be created by a succession of small raids, extending over the whole country, with no substantial damage in any area?

Sir K. Wood: I will gladly see what I can do. Of course, I will review this question in the light of any experience which may be gained, but this arrangement has been carefully considered and I hope that it will be generally approved.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware that this will not cause great satisfaction in the areas where the bombing has taken place? Is he aware that while the raid was on the people were outside, quite unconscious of the danger? And is he further aware that, while there was no air-raid warning when the bombing was taking place, there have been air-raid warnings practically every day since, when there has been no bombing?

Mr. Poole: In coming to his decision, has the Minister taken cognisance of the fact that many air-raid wardens and other A.R.P. workers receive warning of impending attacks only through the sounding of sirens, and that, as a result of this arrangement, in vast areas these people will be completely unaware of such attacks?

Sir K. Wood: I do not think that is so. I feel sure that this new arrangement is the best way of dealing with the situation.

Mr. Gallacher: Can I get a reply to my question? I have been four times in the area where the air raid took place. I have heard the most amazing stories of the danger that women and children were in, and of the bitter feeling—

Mr. Speaker: rose—

Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order. I have been in the area, and have heard the most terrible and bitter complaints. I want to know whether I am not entitled to an answer to my question, and to an investigation.

Mr. Speaker: All the matters to which the hon. Member has referred are being taken into consideration by the Minister.

Sir William Davison: On a further point of Order. Is it fair that Ministers dealing with the Defence Forces should be cross-examined in this way in the House of Commons?

Mr. Gallacher: Why not? I want to know whether I am entitled to an answer to a question that is being asked by the people who have been affected by the bombing. Why was there no air raid warning when the bombing took place, though there have been warnings every day since?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has had an answer.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the Minister aware that the danger to the civil population arises not from their fear, but from their indifference. Does he realise that in the Edinburgh area the people regarded the raid as some curiosity which they should watch from the streets?

Mr. Speaker: We cannot debate this subject at Question Time.

ANGLO-FRANCO-TURKISH TREATY.

Mr. Attlee: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister when it is proposed that His Majesty's Government should ratify the Anglo-Franco-Turkish Treaty?

The Prime Minister: It is usual for treaties to be laid before the House for 21 days before ratification; but, in view of the exceptional circumstances of the present case, it is desired that the Anglo-Franco-Turkish Treaty should be ratified as soon as possible. It is, therefore, proposed to submit the Treaty for His Majesty's signature at once, and to arrange for the instruments of ratification to reach Angora next week.

Orders of the Day — PRICES OF GOODS [Money].

Resolution reported:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to prevent the price of goods being raised above a basic price by more than an amount referable to increases in certain specified expenses, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Board of Trade in paying—

(a) to the members of price-regulation committees appointed under the said Act such remuneration (if any), travelling allowances and subsistence allowances, to the secretaries, officers and servants of the committees such remuneration, and such other expenses of the committees, as may be determined by the Board with the approval of the Treasury; and
(b) to a referee appointed under the said Act for the purposes of any appeal relating to the fixing of prices thereunder and to assessors selected to assist him such remuneration, and such other expenses of such a referee or assessors, as may be so determined."

Resolution agreed to.

PRICES OF GOODS BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Prohibition of sale of price-regulated goods at more than permitted price.)

3.56 p.m.

Mr. Rhys Davies: I do not propose to move the first Amendment in my name— in page 1, line 6, leave out "person," and insert"vendor"—because I believe that the President of the Board of Trade will move an Amendment later which will cover the same point. If the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to give me that assurance, I shall not move this Amendment.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Oliver Stanley): That is correct. I think I understand the object of the hon. Gentleman's Amendment, but I do not think that the Amendment, in the form in which it is drafted, would achieve that object. Therefore, I have put down an Amendment of my own.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 2—(Price-regulated goods.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

3.58 p.m.

Mr. Lewis: This Clause empowers the Board of Trade to say to what articles the Bill shall apply. Is the President of the Board of Trade willing to give an assurance that, in the first instance, he will make the list of goods as short as possible? [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I will say why. This Bill is going to mean added difficulties for traders. Traders are already carrying on under very great difficulties, and the President of the Board of Trade will obtain power to add to the list at any time any goods which it appears necessary to add. I think it is desirable that, in the first instance, he should see how far the Measure is necessary before he applies it.
There will be the possibility—I might almost say the probability—of a number of complaints which prove to be unsubstantiated. Each of these complaints will involve an extra burden on the trader against whom it is made, particularly in the case of a retail trader. He will probably have to appear before the committee to show that the complaint is not justified. Even if the complaint be not justified, he will be put to all that trouble. In the case of a small, one-man business, the man himself will have to go; and in the case of a larger business the manager or some other responsible person will have to go, as it will be a serious matter. All that means a loss of valuable time at a moment when business is being carried on under great difficulties. I therefore ask my right hon. Friend whether he can assure the House that in the first instance he will make the list of goods as short as he feels he can, with the proviso that he retains a right to add to the list at any time any goods that he wishes to add.

Mr. Rhys Davies: To whatever point the President of the Board of Trade will give due weight, and however short or long the list of articles may be, I hope that at any rate the articles included will be such that, if the price regulation is violated, it will not be violated against the consumer. The list really must contain those articles which are most liable to be exploited by the retailer and the wholesaler against the consumer.

4.1 p.m.

Captain Hammersley: Before the Minister replies, on the Motion that is before the Committee, I might perhaps ask a question relative to the cotton trade. Can my right hon. Friend give the Committee some information as to what his intentions are in respect of cotton textiles. The position, I understand, is that a Cotton Board is in existence. I do not know what powers the board has, whether in fact it has any statutory powers at all, but I do know that every day the cotton industry is expecting this board to fix the margins of cotton yarns, and it seems to be in the national interest that the fixation of these margins should take place at the earliest possible moment. Moreover, the fixation of margins should be on the lines of the principles laid down in this Bill. I want to bring to the notice of the President of the Board of Trade the fact that there is the strongest possible repugnance, in responsible circles in the cotton industry, to the very large margins of profit which took place in the last war, and there is a feeling that they should not be repeated now. It seems very difficult to make up one's mind whether prices are to be fixed in accordance with this Bill and the detailed cost to be fixed by some kind of control. If the right hon. Gentleman now or later could give some indication of his intentions it would be helpful.
There are many complaints—I will give a particular example—about the price at which A.R.P. black-out cloth is being sold. These complaints have been brought to the notice of many Members of this House. I myself purchased black-out cloth just before the war started. I sent to a large London store and got the cloth at 1s. 11d. a yard; it was black Italian, 54 inches wide. Then I made an inquiry of a local retailer for the same material a few weeks ago, and the price was 2s. 3d. a yard. I next went to one of the largest merchants who deal in this material and I obtained supplies at 1s. a yard. Those supplies can be obtained by the trade at 1s. a yard to-day. The producers in the trade are not the people who require to make or who are making very large profits. One shilling a yard for material which is now being sold retail at 2s. 3d. a yard does indicate that the margin of profit being made by retailers for merely handling the material is really out of all proportion. As far as the producing

section of the industry is concerned the sooner it gets regulated margins in accordance with the principles of this Bill the sooner the industry will be pleased, and I hope the President of the Board of Trade will be able to give to the industry some indication as to how he hopes to act in the matter.

4.5 p.m.

Mr. Mander: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us some indication of the number of articles he is likely to bring under this procedure, and that if he feels that the number should be considerable he will not hesitate to make it so, because the country undoubtedly wants this Bill to operate effectively in bringing down prices to a proper level. If it were thought that only a very limited number of articles would be included it might have a rather unfortunate effect.

Brigadier-General Clifton Brown: I suppose that "goods," as mentioned in the Bill, would include agricultural products. Would the Minister under the Bill have power to interfere with Milk Board prices or anything of that sort under the contracts which have already been made? If so, that might make it impossible to carry on business. I know that my right hon. Friend would not do anything of that sort, but I think we ought to have some assurance that he will not interfere with agricultural products without consulting the Minister of Agriculture.

4.6 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Is it possible for the Bill to be made retrospective? There are many cases in which profiteering has already taken place and in which it did take place in the first week of the war.

The Chairman: That subject does not arise on this Clause.

Sir T. Moore: Then I must raise it at a later stage.

4.7 p.m.

Sir Herbert Williams: Apparently the word "goods" is not defined in the Bill. The question raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newbury (Brigadier-General Brown) raises in principle the same point as I wish to raise. I ask whether "goods" would include things like water, gas and electricity. I mention them because I


have some association with public utilities, and it is important that we should know whether electricity is an article or a service. Gas is clearly a commodity, and so is water. It would be useful if the President of the Board of Trade would give us some indication, not whether it is his intention but whether it would be within his power to prescribe that electricity comes within "goods."

4.8 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: Perhaps first of all I may reply to one or two of the more specific questions that have been asked. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Willesden (Captain Hammersley) very ingeniously asked on this Clause a question about the textile industry, which has nothing to do with this Bill. He asked as to the possibility of the Cotton Board imposing margins on the industry. I cannot say anything more now than that of course we shall not bring under the scope of this Clause goods which are already regulated in price in a different way. Where the actual selling margin or selling price is already fixed by Order of course there is no possibiliy of profiteering beyond that, and there is no necessity for the machinery of this Bill. That too is the answer to the question of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newbury (Brigadier-General Brown).

Brigadier-General Brown: The Milk Marketing Board fixes its own prices.

Mr. Stanley: I said before, on the Second Reading, that there was no intention of extending this scheme by covering the sort of article which is likely to be the subject of price control by another Department. With regard to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams), the reply is that "goods" is a very wide term, and can cover anything except land. I think it is almost impossible to be more precise in the definition, but of course it is not the intention—clearly it cannot be the intention and under the machinery of the Bill it could not be done—to bring in such things as gas, electricity or water. They are already controlled in one way or another.

Mr. A. V. Alexander: If that is so, I would ask a question on the matter which has been raised by the hon. Member for

South Croydon (Sir H. Williams), because I have had notice of the raising of my flat rate for gas by 45 per cent. What is the Board of Trade going to do about that?

Mr. Stanley: I think it is very clear that whatever may be done by the appropriate Minister with regard to the price of that kind of commodity, it does not really fall within the machinery of this Bill as the kind of goods we have in mind.

Mr. Aneurin Bevan: Are we to understand that this Bill gives no protection against increases of electricity? In many cases you cannot live without electricity; it is almost as essential as bread.

Mr. Stanley: Our view is that if it is necessary to take action in regard to the price of electricity, gas, water or any other commodity, this machinery would not be the best means of doing it. As most of these commodities are regulated by their own Acts, it is clear that it ought to be done by some plain regulation of prices rather than by a Bill of this kind.
With regard to the general question which has been asked, I am afraid it is impossible, before the Act has been passed and the machinery has been set up, and before I have had a chance of consultation with the various organisations, to give an assurance as to whether the list will be long or short. It will depend upon the amount of profiteering in various articles which are reported to me and call for immediate action. I am anxious, as everybody is in this House, not to include anything in the first, list, or subsequent lists, which it is not necessary to do, and I would like to confine myself as far as possible to goods of general consumption which really enter into the cost of living rather than embark upon a long list of various goods. Above all, one is anxious in the early days of starting a new machine that it should not be overloaded unnecessarily. Beyond that I cannot give an assurance, because I must deal with the commodities in regard to which I am convinced, and it is proved to me, that in fact profiteering is going on.

4.14 p.m.

Mr. George Griffiths: The President of the Board of Trade seems to be rather hazy about this matter. Immediately


the war broke out the Government decided that rent rectriction must be applied at once. The workers cannot do without a house in which to live, and they cannot do without either gas or electricity. There is a restriction of rent, but the President of the Board of Trade says that he is not sure about gas and electricity. He ought to put gas and electricity in the list of things to which the Act is to apply.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Silkin: I am rather apprehensive at the statement which the President of the Board of Trade has just, made, as it goes to the root of this Bill. Is he going to regard this Bill as a preventive method, or is he going to deal with profiteering when it actually takes place? I had been led to believe by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman on Second Reading that it was the intention of this Bill to prevent profiteering and not to deal with profiteering after it had taken place, but I rather gather from what he now says that he is going to wait until profiteering actually takes place on specific commodities and complaints reach him before he deals with the matter. I hope that he does not really mean that, but that he will, in the first instance, deal with necessities and regulate these, whether in fact profiteering is taking place or not, so as to prevent the profiteering which we know is taking place throughout the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths) mentioned the question of the restriction of rent. The Government did not wait to see whether profiteering took place with regard to rent, but at once introduced a Measure restricting the increase of rent. In the same way I hope that the Minister will at once deal with necessities and regulate them, and not wait until profiteering actually takes place.

4.17 p.m.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: I agree with the Minister when he suggests that it would be practically impossible to put down a specific list of goods to be dealt with under the Act, and the machinery of the Act will enable the Minister to discuss the types of goods as complaints come along. But I want to press the Minister with regard to electricity, gas and water for a better assurance than we have been given. The Minister stated that their own

view was that these commodities did not strictly come within the meaning of the Act as far as they are concerned. Electricity to-day, apart from gas and water, very often decides the rent. When working-class people take a house they have also to consider the amount of electricity they are likely to use, and, even in London, people in lodgings have to consider what they are likely to have to pay for electricity. It materially affects the income. It is the same with regard to cooking or preparing meals in the home. Therefore, I ask the Minister to give the assurance at least that he will review very carefully the whole question again in relation to his own particular powers.

4.19 p.m.

Mr. E. J. Williams: I would like to put another point with regard to electricity. In the First Schedule it says that the cost of the provision of materials is to be taken into consideration in calculating the price of the article. I am sure that the President of the Board of Trade will appreciate that in the production of articles in these days an enormous quantity of electricity and gas is consumed. Unless electricity, gas and water are taken into consideration under the Bill, it is obvious that people can be exploited through the cost of the production of the article itself. I can see no means by which it is possible to ascertain whether they are being exploited and whether profiteering actually takes place unless electricity and gas are brought within the scope of the Bill in order to decide the quantum used and the price paid in the production of the article itself, apart entirely from the increased charges and the rising prices that the consumers have to pay in households normally. From that aspect alone in the Schedule and the machinery of the Bill it will be essential to bring in electricity and all the kinds of power consumed in the production of the article.

4.20 p.m.

Mr. Bevan: I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman says, that this machinery may not be the best kind of machinery to use in attempting to regulate the price of electricity and commodities of that kind, but I hope he will agree that if this machinery is not appropriate, then it is necessary that the attention of the appropriate Department or Departments should be called immediately to the matter


so that the appropriate machinery can at once be devised to deal with these articles. My hon. Friend has pointed out that they enter very largely into the cost of production of a huge quantity of goods, and unless the price is regulated there will come a point at which there will be profiteering by the seller, which will be reflected in the cost of other products, and that will bring the sellers of those other products into disrepute for profiteering, without justification.
I realise that it is very difficult to deal with this question of electricity. We know from past experience that the supply of electricity in this country is an organised ramp; that they have means of increasing their cost of production which this House has not been able to check, and that much of the legislation under which they operate fixes their rate of profit. Their rate of profit, though legally fixed, bears no relation to the actual cost of production. They may increase the price of goods to themselves by being the suppliers of their own raw materials. We know that there are holding companies which exploit electricity to an inordinate extent. Although I am not arguing that the right hon. Gentleman is not right in saying that this is not the proper machinery with which to deal with this particular production, I do say that this production ought to be dealt with specifically, otherwise the result may falsify the whole scheme of the Bill.
In order to protect a large section of people, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will include paraffin oil at once in the list of scheduled commodities. Paraffin oil is very important, and recently there have been increases in the price of this commodity. I may be wrong, speaking generally, but certainly there have been very considerable increases in the price in rural areas. If paraffin oil is not included in the Schedule, the most unfortunate effects may take place, especially in the rural areas.

Mr. Stanley: It is certainly within the scope of the Bill.

Mr. Bevan: I am not questioning that, but I was hoping that the right hon. Gentleman would include paraffin oil as one of the commodities specifically covered, immediately. Even where there is a supply of electricity, cheap paraffin

oil is a good standby in rural areas, and if the people are not protected against a rise in the price of electricity it may well be that the rural people will find themselves in a difficulty if, seeking to protect themselves by using paraffin oil, they find that the price of paraffin has not been protected. If the price goes up against them they will be badly hit. Therefore, in compiling a list of goods to be immediately regulated I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider the inclusion of paraffin oil.

4.25 p.m.

Mr. Alexander: I shall not advise my hon. Friends to divide against the Clause, because the rejection of the Clause would take away part of the essential power which it is requisite the President of the Board of Trade should have. Having listened to the right hon. Gentleman's explanation in reply to various hon. Members I am coming more and more to the conclusion that this Bill is likely to be far more window-dressing than anything else. I am not saying that in any hypercritical sense, because I recognise the great difficulties that must face any Government in trying to draft legislation to deal with the problem that has to be met. It is clear from what the right hon. Gentleman has said that he is merely the head of one section of Government trading control in this country and that various other Government Departments purport to deal with this or that side of trade functions. He says, in effect, "I cannot make any Order dealing comprehensively with profiteering, in case I should deal with something that comes within the province of another Government Department." Therefore, we may have a price fixed, perhaps, at a wholly unjustifiable rate by the Ministry of Food, or we may have a price fixed at a wholly unreasonable level by the Ministry of Supply, and we may have prices ultimately adopted for goods which are not priced all the way through. In such circumstances there will always be a complete answer available for any trader who is brought before a tribunal, because he will be able to say that some other Ministry had fixed the price of the raw material.
The whole thing becomes make-believe in so far as it is thought to be an effective check against the raising of prices and profiteering. It is a very difficult job


to legislate, but in dealing with this problem of preventing profiteering at the expense of the nation during a time of national emergency, a time of war, there ought to be one Department which deals with it. If there are to be sectional functions performed in regard to the price-fixing of certain commodities then, at any rate, there should be some Department responsible for co-ordination and for the prevention of undue prices. You have not that co-ordination here. That is the real position. The Bill has been put to us as a moral deterrent but, in effect, it is window-dressing. There may be a few people hauled up here and there, but nothing effective will be done. For example, if it has not already taken place, I understand that we shall have a tremendous rise in the cost of newsprint, the price being fixed by a Government Order with no real justification.
The President of the Board of Trade, the head of the Department that we have always looked upon in the past as the Department which controls trade and all the things relating to trade, will have no real power. He has told us in advance that he cannot do anything in regard to the Schedule of price-fixing where it is dealt with by some other Department. The Government will have to think a little more about this matter. If the Government want to have a safeguard against the deterioration of the morale of the people and to stop the everlasting spiral of wages chasing prices but never catching up with them, they will have to deal with all these commodities and not with one or two. I know the right hon. Gentleman's difficulties in regard to the policy that he has explained. I should like to see a Department like the Board of Trade exercising a proper supervision over the whole of this matter and itself performing the proper function of economic co-ordination.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: I will reply to what the right hon. Gentleman has just said. Although he has been extremely courteous I think he has, nevertheless, been very unfair, and it is really quite impossible to sustain the suggestion that the Bill is only window-dressing on the previous remarks I addressed to the Committee. What I said was, that where another Government Department had fixed the price at which an article was to be sold, then

clearly the machinery of this Bill was completely inapplicable. You have to assume that in fixing the price of an article the Department concerned has taken into account the question of profit and has fixed the price at a level which it considers will prevent excessive profits. The remedy, if it has not done so, is to challenge in the House the level of the prices fixed. It would be absurd when a Government Department responsible to this House has fixed the price at which an article is to be sold to add the article to the list under this Bill, and go through all the machinery to see if there has been profiteering.

Mr. Bevan: Suppose they have not fixed a proper price?

Mr. Stanley: The remedy, if there is any idea of profiteering, is for the matter to be ventilated in the House and for the fixed price to be defended in the House.
The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) and several other hon. Members raised a very important point. I am not in the least saying that the price of gas, water and electricity is not a matter of importance. To many people the price of these articles is probably far more important than the price of the majority of the goods which are specified in the Bill. I do not know whether such things as rent and transport charges, and fares would technically come under the Bill, but I am not saying that there is not just as much responsibility on the Government to see that there is no profiteering in these vital services as to see that there is no profiteering in vital commodities, and I accept the suggestion that these are matters which must be watched closely by the appropriate Government Department, and that we must be prepared to take action, not to prevent an increase in price, because an increase may come from natural causes, but to prevent undue profit being made as a result of the emergency. That is an assurance which, I think, hon. Members are entitled to ask, and an assurance which I am prepared to give.

Sir Patrick Harmon: Does the right hon. Gentleman contemplate some kind of coordination between Government Departments so that when prices are fixed there will be somebody to see that excessive charges are not taking place?

The Chairman: I think hon. Members are rather inclined to get into something like a Second Reading Debate, and are not confining themselves to the specific proposals in the Clause.

4.35 P.m.

Mr. Barnes: I want to submit to the President an angle of this problem which is affecting many traders, and which I do not think he has yet fully grasped. Take two commodities, petrol and newsprint. Under the Bill the different sections of users are provided with certain machinery which they can function. Even the consumers have some machinery. There is a machinery for an appeal and a court of referees. There is a proper investigation into the question of the price structure. The President of the Board of Trade has made a statement to the effect that any goods, or articles or commodities whose price is fixed by some other Department is outside the scope of the Bill.

Mr. Stanley: No, it is not outside the scope of the Bill, but I said that I should not propose, for obvious reasons, to put it in in one of the Orders.

Mr. Barnes: In considering a Bill of this kind I submit that some of the problems which are arising as a result of the multiplicity of methods which are being adopted to deal with what is one common problem—

The Chairman: That bears out what I said just now. Hon. Members are rather inclined to discuss very much wider questions than those which arise on the Clause, which merely deals with particular goods.

Mr. Bevan: The fact that the President of the Board of Trade has told the Committee that it is not his intention to include certain goods in an Order is, in my submission, no reason at all why an hon. Member should not argue that Orders should be issued for goods which are technically within the Bill.

The Chairman: That may be so, but the hon. Member must leave it to the Chair to decide.

Mr. Barnes: In discussing this problem, and because of the statement made by the President of the Board of Trade, I submit that we are entitled to know whether or not certain commodities will be outside the scope of the Bill. Let me

put a case which, I think, will convince him that commodities of this kind should not be outside the scope of the Bill. I was quoting the case of petrol and newsprint. There has recently been an increase in the price of petrol and the whole of that increase has gone to the large petrol suppliers. All the rest of the industry, the users and consumers of petrol, have no machinery by which the increase of price can be examined. If that article came within the provisions of the Bill garage proprietors and commercial users of petrol could function the machinery of the Bill and, if necessary, put up a good case to the Board of Trade, but they are precluded from doing so.
When we come to newsprint the price is proposed to be increased from £12 5s. to £17 Per ton, and the general price of paper has increased by 50 per cent. Again, that has been increased, one can only assume, by some form of Government regulation, but there is no machinery such as the Bill provides for the users and consumers of paper to institute any inquiry under the Bill. Therefore, it occurs to me that it would be a greater safeguard to traders if articles like newsprint, paper and petrol could be brought within the provisions of the Measure.

4.40 p.m.

Sir H. Williams: This Debate is of very great importance. The Clause we are now discussing can apply the provisions of the Bill to any commodity. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has given us some indication of the extent to which he intends to use his powers, and that is the matter which the Committee has been discussing for the last few minutes. About 80 per cent. of the transactions taking place in this country will not in practice be brought within the scope of the Bill, for if all foodstuffs are to be left out, and if all commodities the prices of which are fixed by other Government Departments are cut out, what is left will not amount to a very large percentage of the total transactions. If Government Departments fix prices in respect of a whole range of things, whether they are bought for military or civilian purposes—as in the case of steel, pig-iron, scrap, and innumerable commodities—what is left will be a very small percentage. An interesting thing is that we shall not be able to use the machinery of this Bill for the purpose of


challenging the prices at which Government Departments themselves buy things, even when we know that in many cases they buy at prices which are quite stupid.
I doubt whether, in the long run, we shall succeed in controlling prices by legislation, but if we are to make an experiment, let us make it on a sufficiently wide scale. At the present time, if I go to a petrol pump, and the man there says the petrol is 1s. 8d. a gallon, and I say, "I think that is an extortionate price," I cannot use the machinery of this Bill. I could use that machinery if the President of the Board of Trade would permit me, but he has made a declaration of intention this afternoon which means that I cannot use it. A case of this sort was mentioned at Question Time to-day. The Minister of Food has announced that margarine is to be all alike and is to be priced at, I believe, 6d. a lb. What will be the effect of that? We shall be allowed to buy only one quality, and the people who, because of lack of means, have bought a cheaper quality at 4d. a lb. in the past, will be forced to pay 6d. a lb., and there will be no redress. It may be said that 6d. a lb. is a reasonable price. Should I be entitled, under the Bill, if I had a shop, to empty it of all commodities except those which were rather expensive, and then compel my customers to buy those things? We shall have no protection whatever against totally unjustifiable profiteering, in one sense, as far as the consumer is concerned, which may be established by the Ministry of Food, who are apparently going to standardise everything and make the poor people pay more and deprive rich people of the choice which they used to have, thereby irritating both. I think my right hon. Friend ought to give us a little more satisfaction by assuring us that the Bill will be interpreted in such a way that the public can be properly protected.

4.43 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: I cannot allow the last speech to go unchallenged. If the speech had been made by anybody except the hon. Gentleman and in any place except this Committee, I should have said it was nonsense, but as it was made by the hon. Gentleman, in this Committee, I will not say it was nonsense. I will say that it was quite unjustifiable. I have announced—and I think everybody who has studied this matter sees the reason.—that where the Government, who are

responsible to the House and can be challenged by the House, have fixed a price, the article in question does not come within the machinery of the Bill; and to say that that means I have withdrawn 80 per cent. of all transactions from the scope of the Bill is to say something which I think I should be justified in describing as nonsense. My hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) has some knowledge of the range and variety of goods sold in dry goods stores, for instance, all of them things that enter into the ordinary life of the ordinary citizen. That is not the case with pig-iron, scrap, steel, or even pulp. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for South-East Ham (Mr. Barnes) is under a complete misapprehension. It is not the product made from the raw material that is controlled which I should propose not to include in the Bill. It is only the thing which is itself controlled.
I would not bring that under this Bill because already the House of Commons, if it is what it is supposed to be and what hon. Members always claim it to be, is the most effective control of all. The person who has fixed the price, the Minister responsible, is responsible to the House, and any hon. Member, instead of going to a local committee, and from that to a central committee, can come to the House, question the Minister as to why he fixed the price, how he fixed it, and what were all the factors involved, and if that hon. Member is not satisfied by the answer which he receives, he can raise the matter in an appropriate way. Those who have been taught to believe in Parliamentary government have been taught to believe that the most effective control which we can have is the possibility of challenging things in the House. When the Government have fixed the price of an article, and when the opportunity of challenging the Government has not been taken in the House because it is recognised that the price is a fair one, then to include the article under the machinery of this Bill would be sheer duplication. It is clear that effective and fair price-fixing is the biggest control that one can have against profiteering, for that is the only price at which a person may sell. I quite agree that if and as the war goes on, and as commodities may get scarcer and our difficulties increase, more and more price control may be instituted, and more and more goods will be withdrawn


from the purview of this Bill; but I believe they will be so withdrawn because they will then be under such a control, which is even more effective against profiteering than the machinery of this Bill can be. It is only because I believe that that other machinery is the more effective that I say it would be a mistake to try to duplicate it in this Bill.

4.47 p.m.

Mr. Bevan: There may be some misunderstanding arising out of the remarks of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams). The report of this Debate will be read throughout the country, because a very great deal of interest is taken in this subject, and, therefore, what is said in the Committee this evening may serve as guidance to large numbers of committees that have been established to watch these matters. During the last few weeks, there have been established in South Wales a number of voluntary committees the function of which is to watch the movement of prices, and I believe that these committees have already sent information to the President of the Board of Trade with regard to the movement of prices in those areas. It would be a very unwise thing for any provision merchant to concentrate his sales on goods the prices of which are unregulated. What the hon. Member for South Croydon has suggested is that, if he had a shop. he might clear his stocks of articles which come under the orders and confine his sales to those goods that are unregulated and upon which he could make a maximum profit. The answer to the hon. Member is that a person who did that would do no business. The hon. Member is assuming a division of labour of a most extraordinary kind in the trading community, a division by which one class of traders will confine themselves to selling goods on which they can make only a standard profit, and the other class will confine themselves to goods on which they can make unlimited profit.

The Chairman: The hon. Member is now getting a long way from the Clause.

Mr. Bevan: I will not pursue that matter, Sir Dennis. We are really discussing the amount of goods in respect of which the right hon. Gentleman intends to issue Orders. That is a very important matter. One of the difficulties that face us is that here we have a Bill which

confers wide powers on the right hon. Gentleman, but he does not tell us to what extent he intends to use them, and therefore, we are very much in the air in discussing the matter. We do understand that the right hon. Gentleman intends to include in his list of price-regulated goods most of those articles which ordinarily fall within the cost-of-living index. Frankly, I am not much concerned about the others because, as the right hon. Gentleman said, the consumer will regulate the price of luxury goods, and, as long as you have a commonsense definition of necessary goods and luxury goods, you get some kind of control over the prices of all goods. We want a regulated market and a free market. Unless we turn the whole system upside down, we must have those two markets running parallel and the line of demarcation between them will be determined by the particular goods with respect to which the right hon. Gentleman issues orders. There is only one modification, as my hon. Friend has pointed out—that you must have a processing valuation by which the prices of the raw materials which enter into the costs of production of both, are regulated.

The Chairman: In other words, you must have something which is outside the scope of this discussion. I think I must ask the hon. Member not to proceed with that point.

Mr. Bevan: With all respect, Sir Dennis, I submit that I must raise this point. The right hon. Gentleman has made it clear that there is hardly a commodity which cannot be brought within these Orders. I respectfully ask you, therefore, on what grounds am I out of order in what I have said?

The Chairman: The hon. Member must not question me in that way. I have just given him a warning which I am sure he can understand, and I must now rule that he is quite out of order in the ideas which he has just expressed.

Mr. Bevan: I am in a difficulty, to which the whole Committee is exposed.

The Chairman: If the hon. Member's difficulty is that I have ruled certain matters to be outside the scope of this discussion, then I am afraid he must put up with a difficulty, as many of us have to do. I have ruled quite definitely that


it is outside the range of the Debate on this Clause to discuss other methods of controlling other prices.

Mr. Bevan: I accept your Ruling, Sir Dennis. I would be the last person to challenge it. The difficulty which faces me arises out of the fact that we have no guidance as to the category of goods with respect to which the right hon. Gentleman intends to issue Orders, although he may issue Orders with respect to practically all classes of goods. He has power under the Bill to define the basic price, the permitted increase and the ultimate price and, of course, the ultimate price means the sum of the other two. All I am asking is this. Where he has power to do so, will he have regard to those: basic prices which enter not into ultimate consumption, but into industrial consumption, because they affect the ultimate price of luxury articles as well as necessary goods, and, therefore, will affect the very thing we want to have regulated—the goods concerning which he issues Orders? Although we allow the luxury market to flow freely it is important that we should scrupulously watch the market of industrial consumption, the prices in which affect both categories, industrial consumption and ultimate consumption. I am convinced that unless the right hon. Gentleman does so, the whole scheme will fall to the ground. I hope that people in the country will not assume from what was said by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) that traders are to be permitted to say to customers, "We are not going to supply you with sugar unless you—"

The Chairman: Order!

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 3.—(Basic price.)

4.55 p.m.

Sir H. Williams: I beg to move, in page 2, line 4, to leave out "first," and to insert "twenty-first."
I do not suggest that the 21st of the month is the ideal date from which to reckon basic prices, but I do suggest that the 1st of the month is not suitable. I have had representations from large concerns in my constituency to the effect that it is a very bad date for this purpose. On that date the summer sales are usually

in progress. In other words, it is the time when traders are unloading on to the public those seasonable goods which they have not yet disposed of and which they hope to dispose of by means of a substantial cut in prices. It would not, therefore, be fair that the basic price should be taken as the price which prevailed during the period of a sale. It is true that there are words in the Clause which may be said to meet my point. Nevertheless, it is a point of substance which has given anxiety to a great many people in the drapery and other seasonal trades. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, if he is not able to accept this Amendment, will give an undertaking that the words in the Clause will be interpreted so as to relieve the legitimate anxieties of traders, who are not seeking to profiteer, but who might be involved in an unjust charge because of a comparison being made with what I may call the depressed prices prevalent at the sales.

4.57 p.m.

Sir Stafford Cripps: Surely the hon. Member has failed to read the Clause. Sub-section (4) expressly deals with points of the sort which he has made. It provides that if on the proposed date there are any exceptional circumstances affecting the price, some other date can be fixed. Sales might be taking place on 21st August as well as on 1st August, and if we are to have a uniform date we want it to be clear of any period when the prospect of war was beginning to affect prices. The latest date which can be taken for that purpose seems to be 1st August and I should have thought the exception in Sub-section (4) amply covered the hon. Member's case.

Sir H. Williams: If the hon. and learned Gentleman had troubled to listen to me he would know that I had anticipated his speech. I said that the wording of the Clause might be said to meet my point, but my main purpose was to ascertain the right hon. Gentleman's intentions.

4.59 p.m.

Mr. Higgs: If a date is to be inserted it ought to be the most suitable date that we can fix, and I would point out that 1st August is very close to the August bank holiday period which would affect


prices. This basic price is of great importance. People seem to think that when these prices are fixed in the Bill they will be fixed for ever, but that is not so. They will be altered constantly. Normally the law of supply and demand fixes prices, but in this case it is the basic price on which the ultimate price is to be fixed, and it is highly desirable that we should find the best possible date for this purpose. I consider that 21st August would be a more suitable date than 1st August.

5.0 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Major Lloyd George): It is obviously desirable, in fixing the date on which the basic price is to be ascertained, to fix a date as near as possible to the time when normal pre-war conditions prevailed. We came to the conclusion, after a good many representations had been made to us, that 1st August was most suitable, and, as the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite has pointed out, provision is made for altering this date if necessary. The Mover of the Amendment pointed out that certain trades, through having summer sales, found that date not to be fair, and while there is this provision enabling us to deal with special circumstances, we feel it desirable that there should be a date in the Bill convenient for the great majority of people. If, on inquiry, we find that this is not the most convenient date, we are prepared to consider it again between now and the Report stage.

Sir H. Williams: In view of the explanation given by the hon. and gallant Gentlemen, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.1 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Terence O'Connor): I beg to move, in page 2, line 6, to leave out from "ascertained," to the end of the Sub-section.
This Sub-section deals with the method of fixing the basic price. The basic price is that at which goods of a particular kind were sold on 1st August, or whatever the date decided on may be, and to deal with the case where an establishment was not selling goods of that kind at that date, these words were inserted, that the price could be ascertained by reference to

the date when they were last offered for sale. It has been represented to my right hon. Friend that that might work considerable injustice in the case of traders who had not been trading in that particular commodity for a number of years and who desired to resume trading in it. Obviously, it would work unfairly there, and it was thought that the best way of dealing with that kind of case was to apply the test contained in Subsection (3), which is to find out the price at which comparable goods were sold in comparable shops on the fixed date, and apply that as your test of the basic price in respect of the goods.

Amendment agreed to.

5.3 p.m.

Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, in page 3, line 14, at the end, to add:
(5) There shall be exhibited in a prominent place accessible to buyers on any premises where price-regulated goods are sold the basic price of such goods; and a seller of such price-regulated goods shall, on request by a buyer or prospective buyer, inform such buyer or prospective buyer of the basic price of such goods.
If this Measure is to be a success, it is vitally important that we should have the co-operation of consumers. As I understand it, after the long discussion which we had on Clause 2, it is the intention of the President of the Board of Trade to price-regulate goods from time to time, and it will be done by Order, but the general public will have very little means of informing themselves as to what kind of goods are being price-controlled. They will go into a shop, it will strike them that unreasonable prices are being asked, they will not know whether or not the goods are controlled, and they will have no opportunity of finding out. I suggest that where an order has been made price-regulating goods, that fact should be stated at the price where the goods are being sold, and I am also proposing that where a buyer inquires whether or not the goods are price-regulated, there should be an obligation on the seller to inform him and also to inform him of the basic price. I imagine that in time there may be hundreds of articles which will be price-regulated, and unless some machinery of this sort is provided the buyers will be simply in the dark and will not be in a position to judge whether or not goods are being offered at a reasonable


price. I therefore submit that the Amendment is reasonable and that it ought to be accepted in the interests of the consumer.

5.5 p.m.

Mr. E. J. Williams: I do not know that we are actually wedded to these words, but we hope the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate what we are driving at. We are very anxious that the consumers shall have the greatest amount of knowledge of the prices that are fixed, and if it cannot be done by this means, although we think it is a very good means by which to do it, we think the committees in any case will obtain the basic price and any other regulated prices that are charged from time to time, and that the consumers should have some guarantee that they are not being exploited. The basic price is obviously the pre-war price, fixed on 1st August or other convenient date, but it is impossible for the consumers to know what that basic price was or to keep a record or have any knowledge whatever of what was actually paid for the articles before the war commenced. I trust that the Minister will realise that he must help the consumers in this regard, as it is impossible for them to obtain any schedule of prices of the regulated articles.

5.7 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: I realise the object with which hon. Members have put down this Amendment, and to some extent—I think probably to the only practicable extent—I had already anticipated them in Clause 5 of the Bill, but I do not think that the Amendment which they now move would really be of great service to the consumer, and undoubtedly it might be a very considerable source of trouble to the traders. First of all, let me take the point, although it is not the point made in the Amendment, which was made by the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin), that the consumers should know, when they go into a shop, which were and which were not price-regulated goods. As a matter of fact, I want to avoid drawing that distinction, because I am going to move an Amendment later in the Bill which will make it the duty of the central and local committees to keep a general eye on the prices of goods, non-regulated as well as regulated, in order that they may be able to report to me, and I do not want the consumer who goes into a shop to feel, "Here are

price-regulated goods, and if I think I am being unfairly dealt with, I can go to the committee; here are non-price-regulated goods, and even though I feel I am unfairly dealt with, I cannot go to the committee. "I want instances of what appear to be extravagant profits, whether they occur among price-regulated or non-price-regulated goods, to be taken to the committees, so that the local committees all over the country and the central committee may be able to keep in touch with price changes outside the range of goods which are immediately regulated, and be able, therefore, to give me advice as to when and how orders may be made. I think the idea of dividing the two in the mind of the consumer is from that point of view a bad one.
With regard to the question of giving the basic price, I do not see that that will do any good, because the question whether an offence is committed or not does not depend on the basic price of the goods. It depends on the amount of the permitted increase as well. Surely the remedy for the consumer is the local committee, which will be ready to hear his complaints and to take them up, not in any spirit of harassing the trader, but really to get at the truth. Therefore, a person who goes into a shop and feels by comparison with what he paid previously for an article that there has been an undue increase in price, can go to the local committee and ask them to look into it. I do not think that his opportunity is lessened or his chance strengthened by telling him what the basic price of an article was on 1st August, which may, after some months, bear little obvious relation to either the permitted price or the price at which the article is actually being sold. The real remedy of the consumer is to go to the local committee whenever he feels that there has been an increase which he thinks is severe and unjustified. The local committee can immediately obtain the basic price and inquire into the reasons given for the increase so that they can satisfy themselves whether it is justified within the permitted increase and whether, therefore, the price is a fair one. I appreciate the point the hon. Gentleman has made, and I would draw attention to Clause 5, under which application can be made for a price to be specified and provision is made for goods to be marked.

Mr. Silkin: In view of the explanation I do not desire to press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 4.—(Permitted increase.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

5.13 p.m.

Sir Cyril Entwistle: In deciding whether or not an individual trader has charged more than the permitted increase regard must be had to matters specified in the Schedule. One of these is the cost of raw material. How would the permitted increase be determined in the case of an individual trader, and how far would he be justified in increasing his price owing to a rise in the cost of his materials?

Mr. Stanley: There is an Amendment down to the Schedule dealing with this point, and perhaps that will be the most convenient place to deal with it.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 5.—(Power of Board of Trade to specify basic price, permitted increase, or permitted price.)

5.14 p.m.

Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, in page 3, line 21, to leave out from "If," to "it," in line 23.
This Clause is designed to give the Board of Trade power to fix prices in certain cases, but it cannot function except
on the application of any body of persons appearing to the Board of Trade to be representative of traders in goods of any description.
The Amendment is designed to give the Board this power without necessarily requiring representations or application to be made to them by any body of persons representative of traders. If it be desirable, as I think it is, for the price to be fixed in certain cases, I submit that the Board should have the power to do it without necessarily waiting for representations from any particular body of persons, or, alternatively, that if they are to receive applications, they should not be limited to bodies which are representative of traders but should be open to anyone. The simplest way would be to leave out these words and to leave the Board of Trade to fix prices wherever

they think it desirable after representations have been made to them, possibly by all sorts of people. The Clause now shuts the door to representations from anybody but a body of persons representing the traders, and the Board could function only after representations were made to them. It would give the Board wider powers if the words were omitted.

Mr. Stanley: On a point of Order. There is an Amendment down in the name of the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander)—in line 23, after "in," insert "or consumers of"—and another in the name of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan)—in line 23, after "description," insert "or of the central price-regulation committee appointed under Section eight of this Act"—dealing with the same point. I wonder whether it would be convenient if we took a general discussion on the question whether there should be any applications at all and who should make them.

The Chairman: That would probably be for the convenience of the Committee. I understand that the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale is to be moved in a somewhat different form, but I think that all these Amendments deal with the same point and can be discussed together.

5.18 p.m.

Major Lloyd George: The point raised by the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment is that, according to the Clause, only a body of traders can make representations to the Board of Trade, and he feels that that right ought to be extended. I think that his Amendment is due to some extent to a misunderstanding of the purpose of the Clause, because the Clause is intended primarily as a protection to the Board of Trade against having too many applications. It might become almost impossible if the Board had to deal with individual applications from all over the country. The Clause will enable bodies of traders to approach the Board of Trade so that they can get the prices as suggested in Clause 5. I believe that there is an impression that in this way the Board will fix maximum prices. That is not so. What they will do is to fix permitted prices. The trader could sell at or below that price, but there is nothing to prevent him from selling above that price. Still, we have no


objection whatever to other people being allowed to do this as well as bodies of traders, and I think the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) covers that point and covers also the point of the Amendments of the hon. Members for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) and East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander). I suggest to the other hon. Members that they should accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale.

5.21 p.m.

Mr. Bevan: I understand that the actual language of my Amendment does not commend itself to the right hon. Gentleman and he has therefore suggested that it should be moved in another form, namely, after "description" to insert:
or on the application with respect to goods of any description of the Central Price-Regulation Committee appointed under Section eight of this Act.
That would empower the Central Committee to initiate an investigation and to recommend to the Board that either the basic price, or the permitted increase, or the ultimate price should be fixed, but there is a difference between prices fixed under Clause 5 and prices fixed under Orders, because I understand there is nothing to stop the Board issuing an Order with regard to any class of goods and that Order fixes the prices. In this case the price is intended rather to be a pointer. There will be two categories of goods, those for which prices are regulated by Order and other goods for which the prices flow free. Do I understand the President of the Board of Trade to dissent from that? I say there will be two prices after he has issued his Order, the prices of the goods which are regulated and other goods the prices of which flow free; but the trade may feel that it is necessary, for guidance, that the price for a particular commodity shall be fixed, in which case they have the right of appeal to the committee. Am I wrong?

Mr. Stanley: I think the hon. Member has misunderstood the position. When a commodity is brought under this Bill by an Order it does not mean that immediately a price is fixed. What it means is that a man then may not sell at more than the permitted price. The permitted price is not the price laid down by the Board of Trade but is the basic price plus the permitted increase, and he has at his

peril to prove that the price at which he sells is within that formula which has been laid down. The object of Clause 5 is to enable him to come to the Board of Trade and say in advance of any possible prosecution, "I want to prove to you that this is my basic price, this is my permitted increase, and this, therefore, is my permitted price, and if you say it is all right then I shall know that I am perfectly safe."

Mr. Bevan: In the case of the goods which are the subject of Orders, that will have been done. Obviously, a tender will not go to the Board to fix the basic price, or the permitted increase, or the ultimate price for any class of goods concerning which Orders have been issued; but there is the case in which the trade itself might want to initiate an investigation with a view to the definition of a price, and my hon. Friends hold that it is unreasonable to limit that to the trade and that it should be possible for initiation to come from outside the trade. Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is prepared for the committee itself to do it if it wishes to do so? I believe it would meet most of the points raised in the Amendments if not only the trade but the other interests represented on the Central Committee were able to initiate such a proceeding. I should find it difficult to believe that there would be many cases in which it would occur in respect of those articles about which the Board has itself already issued Orders.

Mr. Mander: If the Amendment of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) is accepted, it will cover the point which I had in mind, and I shall be quite satisfied.

Mr. Silkin: On the understanding that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) is accepted, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.26 p.m.

Mr. Bevan: I beg to move, in page 3, line 23, after "description" to insert:
or on the application with respect to goods of any description of the Central Price-Regulation Committee appointed under Section eight of this Act.

Mr. Lewis: Am I right in having understood the President of the Board of Trade


to say that when he issues an Order stating that a certain class of goods is to come within the operations of the Act he does not at that time propose to name any price?

Mr. Stanley: Yes, Sir.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 3, line 26, after "do," insert "the Board."—[Mr. Stanley.]

5.28 p.m.

Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, in page 4, line 20, to leave out "body of."
This Sub-section deals with appeals against the fixing of prices and provides that appeals may be made at the instance of any body of persons appearing to be representative of traders or buyers of goods of that description. I feel strongly that consumers should have a right of appeal, and if we included the words "body of" buyers that would rule out consumers, because there are no bodies of consumers. By deleting these words we should give buyers the right to make an appeal and that would bring in the consumers.

Major Lloyd George: I have great pleasure in accepting the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 7.—(Penalty for selling at more than permitted price.)

5.31 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 5, line 22, at the beginning, to insert "Subject to the provisions of Sub-section (3) of this Section."
With the permission of the Committee perhaps I might deal with this Amendment and with another which is on the same page of the Order Paper and which is consequential. It was represented to us from several quarters that great unfairness might be caused unless some protection were afforded against prosecution to servants who had acted in good faith on behalf of their employers, and, without any knowledge, had passed on goods with more than the permitted increase. The Amendment which I now move, and the other Amendment to

which I have referred, are designed to achieve that result. Briefly, the effect is that a person makes a defence to a charge under the Bill if he proves that he acted under the orders of his employer in the ordinary course of his business, or of some other person, whom he designates. It is of the essence of the matter that he must specify, and by that method you can go up the chain of responsibility until you arrive at the real culprit, the person upon whom you wish to impose the penalty. I move these Amendments in the interests of the servants of employers.

5.33 p.m.

Mr. Rhys Davies: I have to thank the Solicitor-General for bringing forward this Amendment. The Committee will remember that at the commencement of our proceedings to-day I called attention to the matter by my Amendment which I withdrew to insert the word "vendor" instead of "person." These Amendments, however, meet our case in part, although we should like to take the matter a little further by fixing responsibility on the employer for the acts of his servants. I believe this is done in some other Acts of Parliament. An employé might break this law without any motive, except to make profit for his employer and to enhance his position in the firm by so doing. It is possible for him to do so, not because he has received definite instructions that he shall break the law, but because he may have received a nod or a wink to that effect. At any rate, we ought to safeguard the position of the employé and I think it is safeguarded in some degree by what the Government have now done. If the Board of Trade initiate prosecutions at any time in this connection, I trust they will bear in mind that, if an offence is committed by a shop assistant, he may not only be fined and sent to prison but may suffer the additional penalty of being dismissed his job, despite the fact that what he did may have been for the benefit of his employer and not of himself. I thought that the Solicitor-General, who is connected with the law, would be willing that I should put that point to him at this stage.

Mr. Mander: I would like to make sure whether a particular kind of case is covered, as I imagine it is. Suppose a servant in a shop, knowing the proper price is instructed by his employer to charge something higher. He may not


wish to do so, but as a loyal servant he has carried out the orders and charged the higher price; would he be relieved in those circumstances from responsibility?

The Solicitor-General: I think that is the effect of the Amendments that we have on the Paper. Of course, technically, in the ordinary view of the law, he commits a criminal offence, because he has no business to commit a crime even upon the orders of his employer. We have drafted the Amendments in a form to cover the case of a person who, in doing what he has done, has merely carried out instructions.

Amendment agreed to.

5.35 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: I beg to move, in page 5, line 32, at the end, to insert:
and
(c) where the contravention occurs in connection with a wholesale transaction, be ordered by the court to refund to any purchaser the difference between the price paid and the permitted price.
I hope that the President of the Board of Trade or the Solicitor-General will accept this Amendment, the purpose of which is to provide a deterrent, and I believe an effective deterrent, against the charging of excessive prices. It provides that where contravention occurs in connection with a wholesale transaction—it should be noted that the Amendment refers only to wholesale transactions—the offender may be ordered by the court to refund the difference between the price paid and the permitted price. We have excluded the retailer because there appears to be a practical difficulty in making any necessary refund. That difficulty does not arise in the case of the wholesaler, who has to deal with a smaller number of persons in the transactions that come under review. There are penalising provisions embodied in the Measure, and they seem to be quite satisfactory. An offender may, I think, be brought before a court of summary jurisdiction and be fined a sum not exceeding £100 for the first offence. It is clear that the court may decide, within its discretion, to impose a lighter penalty, for example, £2. In that event, it would seem that the profiteer would be able to meet the imposition with ease and complacency, because he would have gained more by the transaction than he was likely to lose by the fine.
It, therefore, seems necessary to provide a more wholesome deterrent, and I suggest that if a wholesaler is convicted of an offence he should be compelled, in addition to any fine which may be imposed upon him, to refund to the trader with whom he has dealt and whom he has charged the excessive price, the difference between the price that was charged and the price which should have been charged. If a refund of that kind is provided for, it will deter wholesale traders from engaging in what, I think, I am entitled by virtue of this Measure to describe as nefarious activities. If some such deterrent is not provided, I imagine it to be a safe assumption that, in spite of the penalties embodied in the Measure, it will be impossible to exercise an effective restraint upon the operations of profiteers. I had an opportunity of discussing the matter with the President of the Board of Trade before the Bill was drafted. I am bound to say that I was under the impression that he conceived this to be an excellent proposal. I was, therefore, all the more surprised not to find it in the Bill itself, and I hope that, now that I have stated the argument afresh, the Solicitor-General will find it possible to accept the Amendment.

5.41 p.m.

Mr. Watkins: I desire to support the Amendment which has been proposed by my hon. Friend, for the reasons that he has given and also for this reason. An Amendment of this nature, in my judgment, seems to be essential in order fully to carry out the main purpose of the Bill. The Bill is really intended to prevent overcharging. Whatever penalty there may be imposed upon someone who has been guilty of an offence under this Bill, unless the purchaser who has been overcharged can recover the amount which he has been overcharged, he will still remain in the position of being overcharged. Whatever penalties may be imposed on a trader who is guilty of contravening Section 1 of the Act, unless the man who has paid too much can get the difference back, the overcharge will actually have taken place and there will be no restitution whatever. For that reason I hope that the Government are prepared to accept this Amendment and to see that the man who is overcharged has a reasonable chance of recoving the amount which he has been charged in excess of the right and proper price.

5.43 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: This Amendment is a most admirable one, and I will let the hon. Gentleman the Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) into a secret, when I say that in the first draft of this Bill we tried to get some machinery of this kind. However, it is not as simple as it might appear, and it would involve a good many consequential Clauses. I will point out one or two reasons why, at any rate, in the form in which it appears at present it is not a practicable proposition. This Clause is dealing with proceedings before a court of summary jurisdiction, and the proposal is that that court should be entitled to award to a person who, in the words of the hon. Member for Central Hackney (Mr. Watkins), had been overcharged, the amount that he is overcharged. The first thing to note is that that court will not necessarily know what the overcharge is. If you were to make it necessary for a court of summary jurisdiction to go into the whole element of basic cost and permitted increase, and to take into consideration all the accountancy questions in the First Schedule, it would be a formidable task to impose upon that court. By a later Clause the burden is thrown upon the accused person of showing that he, in fact, did not sell at more than the permitted amount. All the prosecution has to establish is that an excess has been charged over the basic price. It will not at all follow that the court of summary jurisdiction will necessarily have the material upon which to assess the amount which is the true overcharge. That is the first difficulty. So some machinery other than the court of summary jurisdiction would be required to arrive at the figure which ought to be refunded.
Then I come to the second difficulty, and the hon. Gentleman's Amendment recognises this difficulty by implication, because it excludes the vast majority of transactions which will be retail transactions. His Amendment recognises that it is quite impracticable to do it in the case of retail sales for a variety of reasons. It is the retail sale upon which the evil bites, because the retail sale is usually to a consumer who goes away carrying on his back the whole of the overcharge.? When, for practical reasons, you eliminate the possibility of assisting the retail trader and go back to the wholesaler you may very easily arrive at the position in which

the person who is entitled to make a claim is the person who has already reimbursed himself from the person next lower down on the scale of supply. The middleman buys from the wholesaler at an overcharge as it has been called. He passes the whole of the overcharge on to the next on the scale. If the hon. Member's Amendment stands he can then in the court of summary jurisdiction in the proceedings against the wholesaler recover the price against the wholesaler. At the moment we have not found any means of resolving difficulties of that kind. For these reasons, I am afraid, this Amendment is not acceptable to the Government. What I will promise the hon. Gentleman is that in the light of his representations and those of his hon. Friends, we will look at it again from another angle, namely, to see whether we cannot somewhere in the Bill give to a person who has bought from a wholesaler at an overcharge a right of action against him in respect of any damage that he has suffered on account of paying the overcharge. That would eliminate the difficulty of paying twice over and it would give him a right which he could enforce—

Mr. Shinwell: That is a very interesting point, but I was under the impression that a trader had that right within the law.

The Solicitor-General: I would very much doubt, as a matter of general application, if he has not suffered any damage at all, so that in fact he has not been damnified by the charge which has been passed on to him, whether he could claim in an action between subjects because the other subject has committed the offence. I very much doubt that as a general proposition.

Mr. Shinwell: Surely, if a trader who is purchasing from a wholesaler finds as a result of himself charging what may be regarded as excessive prices that his trade is injured, he would have a right within the law of taking action against the wholesaler on that ground.

The Solicitor-General: I have not made my point clear. What I meant was this. Suppose you have the case of a person buying from a wholesaler who, because of paying a non-permitted increase, has himself suffered an injury and has himself borne the burden, he would have the


right of redress against injury. What I want to guard against is the case where he has suffered no injury at all because he has simply taken the goods and passed the charge on. The tribunal to which the hon. Gentleman proposed to go would not have the material to ascertain the price; proceedings would have to be much more protracted. However, between now and the Report stage I will look into the matter from the angle of giving a title to some action for damage on the part of the person who has suffered.

5.49 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps: I would like to make a suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman, who, I believe, is familiar with the procedure under the Truck Acts, by which a contract is made null and void and, as a result, there is a legal right to recover moneys which ought to have been paid. Would it not be possible here to make a contract null and void in so far as the price which is permitted and thereby give a right to anybody to proceed to recover that portion of the price? That seems to me to be the simplest way; and I do not see that there would be any difficulty in doing that.

5.50 p.m.

Mr. Bevan: If the Solicitor-General's argument is sound, it seems to me that my hon. and learned Friend's suggestion cannot conceivably meet the case. One of the arguments of the Solicitor-General was the impossibility of arriving at the amount of the overcharge.

The Solicitor-General: Of the court of summary jurisdiction arriving at the amount. [Interruption.] It is not impossible for that tribunal, but it would protract the procedure quite unnecessarily. All that that tribunal has to do is to find out that there has been a breach of the law. It does not have to go into the further question of what the amount of the overcharge is.

Mr. Bevan: We are now in a difficulty —it might be my own individual difficulty, but I suggest that it might be shared by some of my hon. Friends. The prosecution is instituted because a price has been charged over and above the basic price. The trader is prosecuted because that leads to the assumption, by somebody who institutes the prosecution, that the amount of the increase is excessive. The question that the court has

to decide is whether such an increase is, in fact, excessive. If the court is to decide that, it must take into account the evidence given by the trader, who says, "I have increased the price over and above the basic price, because of A, B, C, D and E." A, B, C, D and E have to be proved to the satisfaction of the court before a conviction can lie against the trader. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I beg your pardon, but the onus of proof is on the trader. He has to show that, over and above the basic price, he had added certain increases in respect of increased costs to him. Those increases plus the basic price constitute the permitted price. The question is whether that permitted price includes an item of profiteering. How is the sum to be arrived at?

5.53 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: May I try to illustrate the situation by giving an instance which occurred to me while I was listening to the hon. Gentleman? Take the case of goods which are sold, let us say an overcoat, for which no permitted increase has been fixed, so that nobody knows the exact price at which you can sell an overcoat. The price on 1st August was £5, and the price at which the retailer sells is £6. There is a charge of profiteering. Under Clause 9 all that the prosecution has to do is to establish that there has been a sale at a price greater than that of 1st August. The moment that that is done the case is established, and the trader pleads guilty. What amount is the court to award the purchaser? Nobody is going to suggest that the trader would not be entitled to put up the price by something over the price for 1st August, but to what extent he may increase the price nobody knows. All that is known is that he is a self-confessed offender against the Act.
For that reason, I say that the machinery of the court of summary jurisdiction would not be appropriate for what the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shin well) wants. What he wants is to repay to the consumer the amount paid in excess of what would be a proper sale price within the law. That cannot be ascertained by this method. It could be, perhaps, by some method, and I am much obliged to the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) for his suggestion, which will be looked into between now and the Report stage.


If we can do anything to meet this point we are most anxious to do it. We are at one with the hon. Member for Seaham in thinking that one of the best ways of dealing with profiteering would be to take back some of the ill-gotten gains, as well as inflicting the penalty laid down by the Act.

5.57 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: I am under the impression that before proceedings can be instituted, first, the local price-regulation committee will have the matter before them, and will presumably devote themselves to a consideration of all the factors in the transaction, and that, secondly, when that committee have reported to the Central Price-Regulation Committee, the latter body will have applied their minds to the same factors. Before proceedings are taken, the two bodies will have had all the relevant factors under review. When the matter finally comes before the court, all the evidence will be submitted. There is another point which I am afraid the Solicitor-General has overlooked—he will correct me if I am wrong. It is the Director of Public Prosecutions who takes proceedings—

The Solicitor-General: The Board of Trade.

Mr. Shinwell: Very well, I am corrected. The Board of Trade institute proceedings. They have all the facts in their possession upon which the case is founded against the alleged offender. Surely, all these matters come before the court, and it is upon the evidence submitted that the court decides whether to impose a penalty or not. It seems to me that there is no need for any other tribunal to interfere, and that the court itself, being in possession of all the facts, can say that, in addition to the ordinary penalty, the trader should make repayment. However, I do not want to be unreasonable, and if the Solicitor-General and his right hon. Friend are prepared to reconsider the matter, so that on the Report stage we can get something which will act as a deterrent against profiteering, I think my hon. Friends will be satisfied.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Rhys Davies: I beg to move, in page 5, line 39, to leave out "third," and to insert "second."
I move this Amendment in the absence of my two hon. Friends whose names appear on the Paper. I hope the right hon. Gentleman and the other legal luminaries across the way will not think me a very vicious person, but I was wondering why a trader should commit three offences before any effective measure is taken against him to clear him out of the business altogether. May I tell the Committee what has been happening in some sections of the retail distributive trades. I do not know whether it is happening now, but for years it has paid people in some retail establishments to break the law and to be brought before a court week by week and to be fined 5s. or 10s. a time and commit the same offence over and over again. Traders in the mass are honourable people, but there are a few who, if I may use the term used by my hon. Friend the Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell), are guilty of nefarious practices. The words are a little beyond my comprehension on occasions but I will use them for this purpose. This proposal is the most effective means of dealing with such people.
Hon. Members will say, "Look at the fines and imprisonment which may be inflicted on them." I reply look at the fines and imprisonment which can be imposed under other laws and are never inflicted at all. I have some little experience of factory laws. You may fine an employer up to any sum but, when he is brought before his friends on the bench, he is fined half a crown. You may put £100 maximum in this Bill and probably the fine will be 1s., 5s. or 10s. and there will be no imprisonment at all. Where a trader infringes the provisions of this Bill twice he ought to be cleared out of the business for good. If this war continues on the scale that some people apprehend, I am not so sure that the consumers themselves will not do so if he rides roughshod over the provisions of the Measure. I do not want to appear vicious, but the Government ought very seriously to consider this Amendment, and they will notice that it is not mine. It was put down by two hon. Friends and, in their absence, I am taking on the task myself of moving it. I am not without hope that the Government will accept it.

6.5 p.m.

Mr. Kingsley Griffith: I am not sure whether the Amendment is a sound one, but I cannot help thinking that whether


it is or is not, the reason for it is thoroughly unsound, because the hon. Gentleman has such an utter distrust of the court which will impose the penalty that he suggests that the offender's pals on the bench are going to ignore the glorious possibilities of sending a felon to prison for three months, but assumes that they will, none the less, make an order which will put him out of the business altogether. I should imagine that, if they really are so nefarious in their conception of justice that they are likely to let him off with a very small fine, it is no good giving them powers to hang, draw and quarter when ex-hypothesi they are such pals of his that they will let him off altogether. I leave it to the hon. and learned Gentleman to say whether for some other reason this may not be a sound Amendment.

6.6 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: The hon. and learned Gentleman's very effective answer almost disarms me in dealing with the Amendment. No one in the world would ever imagine that any Amendment emanating from the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) comes from a vicious person. We are quite satisfied about that. But what is it that he is proposing to do? By the previous Subsection a profiteer can go to gaol not for three months but for two years on indictment. If the offence is sufficiently serious he will not be brought to trial before his friends on the local bench. He will be sent for trial, and there will be no chance of escaping just retribution. That is the real sanction behind the Bill. What is being held in reserve is that, if the drastic power to punish him proves insufficient on two occasions, on the third there should be a sanction, which is almost unknown to the law, that, with the approval and under the direction of the Attorney-General, he may be driven out of business altogether.— [Interruption.] Indications appear to suggest that I am flogging a dead horse. I will, therefore, wind up my observations by saying that we are satisfied that the penalties here are ample for dealing with the case, and that it is only in very exceptional cases, which we hope and believe will never occur, where after two convictions you find a person such a persistent offender that he goes on, that this drastic step of driving him out of business will be resorted to.

Mr. Rhys Davies: I will convey my feeling to my two hon. Friends who are absent that, if they had heard the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument, they would wish that I should withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In page 6, line 15, at the end, add:
(3) It shall be a defence for a person charged with a contravention of any of the provisions of Section one of this Act to prove that in relation to the matter in respect of which he is charged he acted in the course of his employment as a servant or agent of another person on the instructions of his employer or of some other specified person."—[The Solicitor-General.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

6.8 p.m.

Mr. K. Griffith: I merely rise in consequence of some words that fell from the Solicitor-General in dealing with the previous Amendment. I was very much perturbed when I heard him give a rough sketch of proceedings before a court of summary jurisdiction in the matter of an overcoat, the basic price of which was £5 and, on proof of sale at £6, which was not disputed by the prisoner, forthwith the court proceeds to sentence, with no further information whatever. He has pleaded guilty, but there are gradations of guilt in this as in everything else. I should have thought it was extraordinarily difficult for the court to arrive at a correct decision as to whether it should impose a small fine, or possibly send him to prison for three months, if that was all they knew. I should have thought, therefore, that in the great majority of cases it would be necessary, in order that justice should be done, that the court should take into consideration many of those factors which the Solicitor-General appeared to take it for granted would not be present to the mind of the court at all. If the court is not to have those matters before them, I should have thought it would be very difficult for them to arrive at a correct conclusion. It is necessary, as the learned Solicitor-General said, to consider the operation of Clause 7 in conjunction with Clause 9; the two must be read together. I can see the reason for putting the burden of proof in Clause 9 upon the man who is charged, but until the Solicitor-General had spoken


I did not realise that the combined functions of these Clauses would leave the court operating with such extraordinarily little information. I must say that that prospect rather horrifies me.

6.11 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: The court really will not be as barren of information as the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Griffith) seems to think. If the accused person is reasonably apprehensive of his fate, he will presumably give the court what help he can, and try to minimise the effect of the evidence given by the prosecution. The prosecution will have available to it the information that has been collected by the Board of Trade from the local committee, and perhaps from the Central Committee, and will put before the court the basic price, the actual price, and, no doubt in 999 cases out of 1,000, an estimate of what would be a reasonable increase. That, taken side by side with the actual price charged, would be ample to enable the court to perform its duty, but in the exceptional case where the man accused is recalcitrant and has refused to give any evidence either to the court or to the Board of Trade or to the local authorities, or to the regional committee, the full rigour of the provisions of Clause 9 would be operative. If an overcharge is proved, and if the man persists and will not even say anything to defend himself, I confess that I have not a great deal of sympathy with him.

Mr. K. Griffith: I hope that the course to be followed will be, in the great majority of cases, that which the hon. and learned Gentleman suggests, but if that be true he seems to have swept away a great part of the validity of the reasons he gave for rejecting the earlier Amendment.

6.14 p.m.

Mr. Bevan: It may be that the value of this consists in the vagueness of the offences committed, and it is in fear of not knowing what the law really means that the trader will behave himself in the conduct of his business. It is a strange situation in which penalties are to be assessed for offences which are to be kept vague. The trader himself or the public court will not know the extent to which the trader has offended, because all that

the court will want to be satisfied about is that an offence has been committed, and that whatever increase the trader is permitted over and above the basic price the two ought not to come to the price he charges, but what that price is the court refrains from saying, so that the extent of the offence is entirely vague. I was glad that the original Amendment was withdrawn, because I could see that we might have had three very heinous offences committed, and the ultimate penalty exacted, and two very trivial offences committed which might result in imprisonment or the stopping of the whole business. In view of the ambiguity of offences, I am glad that the penalties are not to be onerous. But I still think and agree with the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. K. Griffith) that the two speeches which have been made by the Solicitor-General do not quite jump together. In 999 cases out of 1,000 the court would have to satisfy itself what the ultimate price should be before it could convict at all. It would have to have all the evidence before it, assess the increase and satisfy itself what would be a reasonable price before any action could be taken.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 8.—(Enforcement by price-regulation committees.)

6.16 p.m.

Mr. Higgs: I beg to move, in page 6, line 21, at the end, to insert:
Provided that so far as reasonably practicable, the price-regulation committees appointed by the Board of Trade in pursuance of this Section shall include—

(a) persons who appear to the Board to be experienced in matters of finance or accountancy;
(b) persons who appear to the Board to have technical knowledge of matters relating to trading in different descriptions of price-regulated goods; and
(c) persons who appear to the Board to be qualified to represent the interests of buyers of such goods."
The reason for the Amendment being on the Order Paper is that there is no indication in the Bill of the intended personnel of these committees. It is desirable that the representation should be given to suitable people, and it would regularise the composition of the committees in various districts if accountants


were represented when it might not be possible to get specialists on subjects on which discussions took place. The representation of trade organisations is most important. We may be accused of advocating the representation of vested interests, but it is desirable on these committees to have somebody who knows something about the commodity in respect of which the price is fixed. There ought to be people with technical knowledge. It is necessary to have specialists and men who really know the particular method of arriving at the price of commodities. The buyers point of view should also be represented. On the Second Reading of the Bill the President of the Board of Trade said that as far as possible the representation of both produce]- and consumer should be included on these committees, but, in my opinion, that does not go far enough. It is desirable to include those persons mentioned in the Amendment.

6.18 p.m.

Major Lloyd George: I fully appreciate that the desire of the hon. Member in putting down this Amendment was to ensure that we should have qualified people serving on these committees. I would point out to him that to start by specifying the people you are to put on these committees would narrow the range of the representation. While it is obvious that we should have people of this character on these committees, I am anxious that we should not specify who should be put on, otherwise we would have no end to the number of people who would demand representation. We have consulted all the bodies concerned with the working of this Bill, and we shall continue to consult them, particularly when it comes to making up the committees. There is another Amendment later in the name of an hon. Gentleman and I hope I can satisfy him, too. I can give the Committee this assurance that, throughout the whole of the discussions we have taken the closest consultation with all the organisations concerned, and we shall continue to do so, particularly in setting up the committees. Therefore I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press the Amendment.

6.20 p.m.

Sir H. Williams: As my name is attached to the Amendment, I should like to say that the object in putting down

the Amendment was not with the expectation that it would be accepted, but in order to get a declaration of the intention of the Board of Trade as to the policy to be pursued. There is great force in the argument that if you attempt to prescribe in precise words in a Statute something of this sort you may unduly hamper yourself in your selection. After the Minister's assurance that the considerations covered in the Amendment are to be borne in mind, and having regard to the fact that you cannot have committees which are unwieldy in number, it might be a good idea if my hon. Friend asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.21 p.m.

Mr. Spens: I beg to move, in page 6, line 33, after "Act," to insert:
to investigate alleged contraventions of the provisions of Section one of this Act when so referred to them by the Board of Trade.
This is the first of three Amendments which depend on each other and which aim at trying to deal with one point of procedure which appears to us to require consideration, and, if possible, dealing with in the Bill. The President of the Board of Trade told us on the Second Reading that there would be something like 14. local committees established throughout the country. There are a number of firms who will have branches in more than one area of a local committee. There will be some very large concerns that will have branches in every area of every local committee, and it may be that firms or companies which control a number of subsidiaries throughout the different areas. As the Clause is drafted it appears to us that it might be possible, indeed probable, that in more than one area, or in several areas, you might have complaints made about some article sold by a firm, or an allied firm, and if you have a lot of local committees having to investigate each case, because the obligation is cast upon them that if a complaint is made they must give an opportunity to the plaintiff to be heard, and they must deal with the matter, there will be waste of time. It seems to us that there will be the most frightful waste of effort under the machinery as it stands at the present time. We suggest that there should be some method in cases of this description by which the local committees might be relieved of each of them having to deal with the same matter


arising in different places, and that there should be some method by which the proceedings in the different places could be stopped and that there should be proceedings only in one centre. I notice my right hon. Friend desires to intervene. Perhaps I have misconceived the machinery.

6.24 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: I must apologise to the Committee, as I have to be at another engagement. I should like to say a few words in response to my hon. and learned Friend. No doubt my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will deal with the Amendments, but I would ask my hon. and learned Friend and the Committee to count up the number of days which would be taken by his Amendment, and he will realise that that procedure would not be to the advantage of any of these multiple shops or of any single trader against whom a complaint is made. I can well understand the necessity for uniformity of treatment of these branches scattered over the place, but that can be secured by administration. It is only a central price committee that can authorise or advise a prosecution. We have, therefore, the power of getting uniformity among the local committees, because they know that when the Central Committee has sent in a decision it is no use taking up a case which goes against that decision, with a view to prosecution. Therefore, it is perfectly possible for the Central Committee to ensure uniformity of treatment of these different branches of a business. In order to make the position more plain, I am prepared to consider the advisability of putting in my hon. and learned Friend's first Amendment, or something on those lines, so that the Central Committee may have the power to carry out these investigations. They might do it through the area committee. I am perfectly prepared to consider that, but I could not consider the sort of procedure set out in the second part of the Amendments.

6.26 p.m.

Mr. Spens: I fully appreciate the point that my right hon. Friend has made about time, and I do not for one moment put the Amendments forward as if they represented the best procedure, but because I am very doubtful whether without some amendment of administration the powers

of the board are sufficient to meet the point we are raising. I am not clear whether, unless the Central Committee is given some further powers such as we Suggest, any administrative machinery would be able to remove from the local committee and put into the hands of the central committee something which was not a local matter but was a national matter. If my right hon. Friend is prepared to consider the point, which is one which will appear very often, having regard to the numbers of firms with branches all over the country, and he is prepared to consider the wording, I shall be very grateful to him.

6.27 p.m.

Mr. Holmes: My hon. and learned Friend has referred to this matter as if it concerned only multiple shops, but actually it will refer to any article which has 100 per cent. distribution throughout the United Kingdom. Take the imaginary case of X.Y.Z. blacking, which was being sold at 1s. per tin prewar and was subsequently sold at 1s. 6d. There could be a complaint of profiteering in every district in the country, and if there were 12 or 14 local committees set up every one of these committees would be dealing separately with the question whether the increase in price from 1s. to 1s. 6d. was justifiable. Therefore, the manufacturer and the retailer would have to appear before these committees and there would be a tremendous waste of public time. We have suggested one course. I make another suggestion to the President of the Board of Trade, as he has been good enough to say he will consider the matter, and that is that when a complaint is made to more than one local committee concerning an article it shall be the duty of the central committee to order the committee that first had the complaint to investigate the matter and to call off any inquiry by any of the other committees. After the matter has been settled the central authority should notify the local committees of the decision, and that should be the decision for the whole. In that way a good deal of duplication of work and waste of time would be avoided.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: As I said, I find that the method set down in the Amendments is unacceptable. The more I listened to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member


for Harwich (Mr. Holmes) the more I realised that there might be a good deal of duplication of inquiry and the more convinced I was that this is an administrative matter and not a legislative matter. It does not need Amendments of the Bill but the devising of proper administrative co-ordination between the local committees and the central committee. I can appreciate the desirability of avoiding 14 separate committees inquiring at the same time into the price of the same article. It does not seem to me to be beyond the wit of man to devise administrative machinery which would prevent that being done, and enable the question to be considered by the central committee and for their view to be communicated to the local committees. I will certainly promise to look into this matter and bear closely in mind the point which has been raised.

Mr. Spens: On that undertaking I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.32 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: I beg to move, in page 7, line 1, to leave out from "shall," to the end of line 7, and to insert "institute proceedings accordingly."
The purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that inquiry and action shall be accelerated. There is the danger that the processes may be slowed down unless the requisite machinery is provided in the Bill. The local price regulation committee is to communicate with the central price regulation committee in the first place, and if the latter body are of the same opinion as the local committee they are to request the Board of Trade to institute proceedings. There appears to my hon. Friends to be some substance in the request that the local price regulation committee should have the power to institute proceedings if circumstances justify that course. It may be unwise, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, to duplicate the machinery and give local committees similar powers to those possessed by the central committee to make representations to the Board of Trade so that proceedings may be instituted. If the right hon. Gentleman feels that this is not an Amendment suitable for the purpose I have in view, I am willing to withdraw it if I have an assurance that the machinery will be of such a character as to make certain

that there is no unnecessary delay in taking the kind of action which is expected of the Board of Trade in the event of a case being presented which justifies action being taken. If I can get that assurance I shall not press the Amendment.

6.34 p.m.

Major Lloyd George: I appreciate the desire of the hon. Member to accelerate the working of the Bill, and I can assure him that I am entirely with him. But there is a difficulty, and that is that it is essential to get uniformity throughout the country. It would be a serious thing if in one place the local committee regarded as an offence something which in another part of the country another local committee did not regard as an offence. It is vital that we should have absolute uniformity in carrying out the Bill. That is the only reason why we cannot accept the Amendment, but I can assure the hon. Member that the machinery we have devised will make proceedings as quick as possible. I go further and say that if we find on experience that there is delay we will look into the matter. Delay is not one of the things which we are anxious to get in connection with this Bill.

Mr. Shinwell: In view of that assurance I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.36 p.m.

Sir H. Williams: I beg to move, in page 7, line 18, at the end, to insert:
(5) The public shall not be admitted to any meeting of a price-regulation committee at which a person alleging a contravention of this Act is heard by such committee and the proceedings of such committee shall be private.
The purpose of the Amendment is to stop publicity being given to preliminary proceedings which may not lead to a prosecution. I think the Bill is well designed to prevent the kind of malicious prosecutions which took place under the Profiteering Act in the last war. If a complaint is made by a citizen alleging profiteering it is the duty of the local committee to investigate. They will have to communicate with the person against whom the offence is alleged, and later on there may be some kind of preliminary hearing at which the complainant and the person against whom the complaint is


made are present. At that stage nothing is proved and the whole thing may ultimately be dropped. It would be unfair to traders to be exposed to such charges, because even if they are found not guilty a certain amount of stigma always attaches to them. There is a strong case that the proceedings before the local committee should be private.

6.38 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend has made out a strong case in support of his contention, but the case is already covered by Clause 18, Sub-section (4) of the Bill, where it is provided that the Board of Trade shall make regulations prescribing the procedure to be followed. It is obvious that proceedings of a preliminary character before a local price-regulation committee are not the kind of proceedings which with any sense of fairness should be held in public. I have not the slightest doubt that regulations will be made to prescribe that this preliminary hearing, the first hearing of what may be a perfectly malicious and groundless complaint, shall not be heard in the blaze of the searchlight of publicity, which may do irreparable damage to someone who is totally innocent. It is totally different when a prima facie case is made out; proper publicity should then be given to it.

Sir H. Williams: In view of the most satisfactory explanation I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. It is better to do this by regulation than by Statute. The supreme merit of dealing with it by regulation is that if the regulation is not satisfactory it can be altered, whereas an Act of Parliament cannot be altered without passing an Amending Act.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In page 7, line 26, after "notice," insert:
being accounts, books or other documents, the examination of which may be reasonably required for the purposes of this Act."—[The Solicitor-General.]

6.40 p.m.

Mr. Mander: I beg to move, in page 7, line 28, at the end, to insert:
(6) It shall be the duty of a local price-regulation committee to investigate complaints concerning the unreasonable raising in price of non-price-regulated goods and the committee shall in appropriate cases make a

report with regard to such cases to the central price-regulation committee with a view to an order being made by the Board of Trade under Section five of this Act. The Board of Trade shall in appropriate cases publish this report with the names of the articles and firms concerned.
This Amendment raises a very important matter. I am afraid that, in the course of a few weeks or months, when a certain number of articles have been standardised and their prices regulated, all the traders outside that range of articles will think that things have settled down and that they need not worry, and that they will then proceed to go further and further in the direction of excessive profits, feeling that they are outside the scope of anything that will be done under the Bill. Therefore, it is important to make those people realise that some committee or person will be constantly on the watch, hearing and investigating charges of this kind, so that none of these people will know when the prices of the goods which they themselves manufacture may be regulated. Such a power would be a very powerful deterrent, and it is a deterrent that is wanted. I am sure that the Debates in the House and propaganda in the Press during the last few weeks have had an enormous effect in checking prices and preventing profiteering. It is only a deterrent of the kind I have mentioned, constantly before the persons concerned, that will prevent a tendency in the direction of profiteering.
The last sentence in the Amendment touches a rather different point. It is there suggested that the Board of Trade shall in appropriate cases publish the report referred to in the Amendment, together with the names of the articles and firms concerned. That, I believe, would be a tremendous weapon against profiteering. There is nothing of which people are more afraid than the possibility that they may be pilloried, and their names given to the world, as the makers of excessive profits or as attempting to ask too high prices. If there were such a power in the background, to be used only as a last resort in very bad cases, I think it would be a very useful thing.
It may be said that we shall get this as the result of a prosecution, and I may be asked whether it would not be better to rely on a public trial in the courts, where there is every opportunity for an


investigation and where both sides can be heard. It should be remembered, however, that what I am suggesting would be done only after the local committee have thoroughly investigated the case, heard both sides, got all the facts together, and passed the case on to the central committee, which in turn, after going into the whole case and satisfying itself, had passed it on to the Board of Trade, which had come to the conclusion that the particular case was so overwhelming that it was desirable to give publicity to it. There would be every opportunity of giving the man who was charged a chance of making out his case. What I am suggesting is not the making of a public charge against a man, but merely the publication of the report, which would be a statement of certain facts, which the public might like to know, and which the Board of Trade felt it was desirable that the public should know, as to the real profit that was being made.
My main object in moving the Amendment is to strengthen the power of the Board of Trade to deal with certain persons who will after a time, I am afraid, be inclined to go ahead with profiteering. The more reserve of power you can have, the more you can bring home to these people that they will not get away with it, the less chance will there be of their attempting to do so. If the Government are not able to accept the whole of the Amendment, or to accept it in the particular form in which it is moved, I hope that at any rate they will sympathise with the idea behind it, and perhaps accept some Amendment on those lines.

6.45 p.m.

Sir H. Williams: I hope the Amendment will not be accepted. I think the idea behind the Amendment is a deplorable one. The Committee might come to a conclusion, which might be detrimental to some person, and without the case having been tried before any proper tribunal, a great penalty might be inflicted on that person, perhaps quite unjustly. If it were a question of the Board of Trade having no option but to publish the report, it would be better than giving the Board of Trade the option proposed in the Amendment. If I occupied the exalted position of President of the Board of Trade, and it was alleged that the price of paint was such that it amounted to profiteering, and a report to that effect

came before me, I should have to make up my mind whether to publish it or not. I might be moved by all sorts of improper considerations. I might feel that this was a long-awaited opportunity of doing a certain person in the eye. I should have that terrible power, and the hon. Member and all his Friends would bring every kind of pressure on me to publish the document. I think that would put the Minister in an intolerable position.

Mr. Mander: The hon. Gentleman is making a very unnecessary personal attack.

Sir H. Williams: I am not making any attack. I am trying to illustrate the matter in a way in which people can understand it, including the hon. Member. I am trying to visualise what his position would be. That very often makes things understandable. After all, it is only the toad who knows what the harrow is like. It is amazing how much clearer things become when they are taken from the general and brought to the specific. It would be deplorable to place any Minister in the incredibly difficult position that he had to decide whether he would publish a report which might blast the reputation and destroy the business of a respectable citizen.

6.47 p.m.

Major Lloyd George: With regard to the first part of the Amendment, we are not opposed to what it sets out to do, because we feel it would be a very great advantage if goods the prices of which are not regulated were kept under review by local committees. That might be a very useful check on such prices, and I am hoping between now and the Report stage to get a form of words that will meet the case put by the hon. Member. With regard to the second part of the Amendment, however, I am afraid that I part company with the hon. Member. The last sentence of the Amendment contains a very serious suggestion. The hon. Member said that if there is an overwhelming case of profiteering, then the report should be published as a last resort. I think that would be a most unfair thing to do. No charge would have been made against the man concerned, and the report would simply be waved before him and he would be told that the Board of Trade were going to publish it. According to the Bill, the man would not


actually have committed an offence, because he is permitted to charge a price above the permitted price, but he does it at his own risk, because he is liable to prosecution. In the last part of the Amendment, we are asked to publish a report that such a man is a terrible profiteer before really he has been charged with that offence, and before he has been found either guilty or not guilty. Moreover, a person could not be charged with an offence outside the scope of the Bill, that is to say, the price regulation. Quite apart from this, I do not think it would be fair to publish the name of a man who might conceivably be not guilty. Surely, if a deterrent is wanted the best deterrent of all is the fact that if a case is proved, a prosecution follows immediately and the punishment is heavy, but what is even a heavier factor is the fact that full publicity will be given to the conduct of the case. Therefore, while we are certainly prepared to consider getting some words to meet the first part of the Amendment, we cannot consider anything on the lines of the last sentence.

Mr. Mander: I do not think there would be any real danger of injustice when it is considered that the case would have to go before three different authorities and would be thoroughly investigated. If I thought that any injustice was involved, I should not put forward the proposal. However, my hon. and gallant Friend has been good enough to indicate that he accepts the principle of the first part of the Amendment, and I feel that that gives me all I want, or the main part of it, and that there will be some check on the price of non-price-regulated goods. In view of my hon. and gallant Friend's promise to bring forward certain words on those lines on the Report stage, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.51 p.m.

Mr. Ammon: I beg to move, in page 7, line 29, after "shall," to insert:
include among its members representatives of working-class organisations (one of whom shall be a woman) but otherwise shall.
One general criticism of this Bill will probably be that it is largely concerned with the relations between wholesalers and retailers. Therefore, where any con-

sideration is given to the consumer, we want to make the position of the consumer as secure as possible, and this Amendment is moved with that intention. In the discussion on Clause 2, suggestions were made as to certain additional matters which might be included within the ambit of the Bill, but I think as it stands the Measure is concerned mainly with articles of common consumption such as clothes and boots. This Amendment seeks to have regard to those persons who will be mainly affected, namely, the small purchasers who form the mass of the population. The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite referred to the purchase of an overcoat and the desire of the purchaser that the price should not be put up too high. The suggestion that there should be representatives of working-class organisations on these committees has this value, that it would bring on to the committees the people who are directly affected by the prices. There is a danger that the committees may be composed of people who have no knowledge of the cost of goods in those neighbourhoods which are chiefly inhabited by working-class people. Nobody is better acquainted with these matters than the working-class woman who does most of the shopping for her household.
It is well-known that prices may vary considerably within very narrow limits of distance. In a shopping centre where better-off people do their purchasing, the price of goods may be a little higher than it is in another district only a short distance away where the residents are, what is generally known as working-class people. The only effective way of putting a check on prices is, I suggest, to have on these committees members who are in touch with the actual condition of affairs and who are able to give advice based on specific knowledge. I gathered from what the hon. and gallant Gentleman said on an earlier Amendment that he had already rejected this Amendment in advance, but I suggest that the arguments used in that case, by no means fit this Amendment. The earlier proposal was that certain specified people with special qualifications should be put on these committees. This Amendment is concerned with the general buying public the consumers themselves and if these words are not inserted then as far as one can see,


there is no assurance that such people will be considered in the formation of the committee.

6.55 p.m.

Mrs. Hardie: I support the Amendment for two reasons. First, I desire particularly to press the claim of working-class women to membership of these committees. I am sure that they would be found to be exceedingly valuable members. They represent a section of the community who have limited incomes and who must, therefore, see that they get value for their money. The committees would benefit greatly from the shrewdness and knowledge which exist among large numbers of working-class women with regard both to the price and the quality of goods and apart from the question of looking after the interests of the consumers, it would be a great advantage to the committees to have them as members. There is another point which is worthy of consideration. If there are working-class representatives on the committees it will give the public confidence in them. Ordinary members of the community will feel that they can safely trust committees on which the buying public is represented. For those reasons I hope the Amendment will be accepted.
It is well known that the prices of goods will vary not only from district to district but from shop to shop and that many tricks will be employed to evade this Measure. I give one illustration which has been brought to my knowledge. The manufacturers of certain goods are altering the design of the articles in various minor respects and making little changes so that when 4s. 11d. is charged instead of 3s. 11d. the customer cannot detect the exact amount of the increase in price. Variations are introduced in such a way that it is very difficult to trace the actual increase in the price of the article. All kinds of devices like that will be used and there is no one better qualified to deal with these cases than the person who is accustomed to do shopping on a limited income.

6.58 p.m.

Major Lloyd George: The hon. Member who moved this Amendment suggested that I had rejected it in advance. I hope he will not misunderstand me. What I tried to point out on the previous Amendment was that I did not wish to specify

any particular section of the community or any particular profession in connection with the composition of the committee. I fully appreciate what has been said by the hon. Members opposite with regard to the importance of having representatives of the working class on the committees and particularly on the local committees. This Bill is in the main designed to help those people because they are consumers of the kind of goods which we shall put into these Orders. I do not wish to accept this Amendment, but I readily give the hon. Member the assurance that when it comes to the composition of the committees, what he wants to do by this Amendment will be done. That is definitely our object, but we do not want to specify particular organisations because so many organisations might come forward seeking representation that the result would be completely unwieldy committees.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: The hon. and gallant Gentleman's assurance is all right as far as it goes, but this is a matter of great importance and we would like him to be a little more specific. There are a great many organisations which cater for the needs of working-class women—trade union organisations, political organisations, and organisations, for want of a better term, that are nondescript in character—but some of them are very much dominated by ladies of title, who come from the more wealthy sections of the community, and we want to make certain that if the hon. and gallant Gentleman is selecting a woman to serve on a committee, he will not consult persons who are unrepresentative of working-class people, but persons who are fully representative of them. That is the essential point. I have not the least doubt about the beneficial intentions of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and I think that also applies to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. I think they want to see working-class women represented on these committees, but it may be that, in their search for such representation, they may approach the wrong type of organisation and, in consequence, appoint the kind of person who is not, in the opinion of this party at least, representative of working-class women throughout the country. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will meet the point that I am now putting to him and be a little


more specific in his assurances to the Committee, I think it might be possible to withdraw the Amendment.

7.2 p.m.

Mr. Tinker: We have all been touched by the profiteering that goes on, and the cry has come from working-class people. Wherever I have gone during week-ends in my constituency I have been told about the evils of profiteering, and the only way to satisfy our people will be to have some practical representative of them on these committees. I would like to make a suggestion. The hon. and gallant Gentleman might, if he agrees with us on these lines, ask for a representative from, say, the local trades and labour council. We desire that a woman should be one of the number, because the housewife is the person who, after all, has to deal with the money, and it is she who complains most bitterly about prices. If you got one of those on the committee, with the knowledge that they have of prices, it would be a great help to the working-class community. I believe the hon. and gallant Member is inclined that way, but I would like him to be a little more definite and to give us the assurance that he wants to follow our desire in this matter.

7.4 p.m.

Major Lloyd George: The whole object of this Bill is to prevent profiteering, and we are most anxious to see that the people who serve on these committees should be people who have knowledge of the matters that are affected. I do not know what other assurance I can give, except to say that I will consult with any hon. Member opposite who thinks that he could help us to get the thing which we all want. I will, therefore, give the assurance— and I am sure my right hon. Friend would agree—to consult with anybody suggested by the party opposite.

7.5 p.m.

Sir H. Williams: The hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) suggested that if you wanted to get a woman representing a working-class organisation, the trades and labour council was the only organisation to consult. That is a suggestion that you should have on this committee a woman who belongs to the Labour party. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] Well, you know what local trades and labour

council are. My suggestion is that if you include a trades and labour council as one of the bodies to be consulted, it happens that in my constituency the largest organisation of wives of working men is the local habitation of the Primrose League.

Mr. Shinwell: That is the Tory party.

Sir H. Williams: Well, if you are going to have one party organisation of working-class women, you must have the other also. This idea of being high minded and broad minded when you frame an Amendment the sole object of which is to get more members of the Labour party on the committee does not appeal to me. If you frame a thing which brings in politicians, you should give all the political parties a fair run, but hon. Members opposite sometimes pretend to be very high minded when they are merely being political.

Mr. Tinker: Surely the hon. Member does not claim that he represents working-class opinion?

Sir H. Williams: I happen to represent more manual workers than do 90 per cent. of the Members opposite. As long as I have more working-class supporters voting for me than the hon. Member for Leigh has, and as I know them very intimately and have lived all that kind of life myself, I shall always object when hon. Members opposite arrogate to themselves the representation of the working classes of this country. If they had, they would be on this side of the House.

Mr. Ammon: In view of the assurance given by the hon. and gallant Member on behalf of the Government, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 9.—(Onus of proving that price charged is within permitted price.)

Amendments made:

In page 8, line 13, leave out "he made."

In line 14, after "question," insert "was made."—[The Solicitor-General.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 10.—(Provisions for preventing evasion of this Act by means of collateral transactions.)

7.7 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 8, line 20, to leave out Sub-section (1).
If I may, I will say a word or two about all the Government Amendments to Clause 10 and to Clause 11, because they all hang together, and they are for the purpose of meeting certain objections that were raised on the Second Reading of the Bill. The Committee will see that the first of these Clauses is devised to prevent what it is very difficult to prevent, namely, the kind of practice by which a trader does this: I will give the instance of sandbags. A sandbag is offered for sale at a price which is in itself reasonable, but the person selling the sandbag will not sell it unless the buyer will have it filled, and the trader charges very stiffly for the process of filling. That illustrates the kind of transaction at which Clause 10 aims, to prevent it being possible to link together two transactions, to take your profit on one, and, therefore, ostensibly to get outside the Act. In the Clause, as drafted, we left it open. It is a very difficult matter to deal with, for some quite general reasons. It was said, for example, that we had caught this kind of case. Suppose a person said, "If you want one pair of socks, it is 2s. 6d., but if you have three pairs, it is 6s." That is the condition of taking other goods in order to bring the price down to 2s. Hon. Members could say that that condition was made an offence under the Act, whereas, of course, it is the ordinary wholesale, as distinct from the ordinary retail, sale. We have, therefore, reconsidered the whole of Clause 10 and have dovetailed it in with Clause 11.
Cause 11, as the Committee will remember, is the Clause dealing with the case where a person has a stock of goods and will not sell them. Here, again, nobody wishes to force people to sell out of their ordinary course of business goods to the first person who comes along, and provisions are made for excepting transactions of that kind. Subject to that people who have goods are no longer to be allowed to hold them up. We have dealt with the mischief I have described

in Clause 10 by the Amendments to Clause 11. That has, therefore, resulted in our being able to eliminate from the Bill the first Sub-section of Clause 10. In other words, we have thrown into Clause 11, by the addition of the words, "For the purposes of the preceding Sub-section," and so on, the kind of transaction which we were aiming at preventing in Clause 10. The other Amendments on these two Clauses are of a drafting and clarifying character.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 8, line 28, leave out from the beginning to the first "the," in line 31, and insert:
where a person makes an offer to enter into a transaction for a consideration to be given as a whole in respect both of a sale of any price-regulated goods and of some other matter (whether or not being, or including, a sale of other price-regulated goods).

In line 34, leave out "to sell those goods."

In line 35, leave out "them," and insert "those goods."—[The Solicitor-General.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 11.—(Prohibition of holding up of stocks.)

Amendments made:

In page 8, line 37, leave out "Any," and insert:
Subject to the provisions of Subsection (3) of this Section, a.

In page 9, line 1, leave out "unless the acceptance of the offer," and insert:
(2) For the purposes of the preceding Sub-section a person shall be deemed to have refused an offer if he proposes acceptance thereof subject to a condition requiring the buying of any other goods, whether being price-regulated goods or not, or the making of any payment in respect of any services, or to any other condition.
(3) A person shall be entitled to refuse such an offer as is mentioned in Sub-section (1) of this Section if the acceptance thereof, or the acceptance thereof without the fulfilment of a condition proposed by him."—[The Solicitor-General.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill."

Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 13.—(Exception for sales by auction, or for export.)

7.14 p.m.

Mr, Silkin: I beg to move, in page 9, line 19, to leave out Sub-section (1).
This Sub-section provides that:
This Act shall not apply to a sale, or to an agreement or offer to sell, for an amount fixed by auction.
As the Bill deals with price-controlled goods, this Sub-section must provide that if such goods are sold for any amount fixed by auction they shall come outside the provisions of the Bill. "Auction" is a wide term and this Sub-section might be a means of leading to a good deal of evasion. There is no definition of the word in the Bill. There is the public auction which is carried out by a licensed auctioneer, but there are other forms of auction which lend themselves to the possibility of evading this Bill. There is the kind of auction which takes place in markets on Saturday night when, at the end of the day's trading, what is left over is ostensibly sold by auction. Buyers, who are usually the poorest consumers, imagine they are getting bargains. Sometimes they do, but sometimes they do not, and if we permit that kind of auction to be treated as an exception we may very well provide a way by which traders can evade the provisions of this Bill. Then there is the Dutch auction, which sometimes takes place in shops in the Strand, where a price is named and the auctioneer brings it down until he finds somebody prepared to pay it. Unless the article happens to be price-regulated a buyer might purchase at a price above the regulated price. Nobody would say that auctions of that kind should be exempted.

Mr. K. Griffith: I am not clear as to the object of this Amendment because auction sales are different from other sales, their whole idea being that somebody is anxious to get a particular lot and the man who bids the highest gets it. I may be misinterpreting the object of the hon. Member, but does it not amount to saying that we shall not have auctions at all? That would seem to me to be the result of his Amendment.

Mr. Silkin: The point would be that you would not permit a sale at a price which goes beyond the price which would otherwise be obtainable for price-regulated goods. I cannot see any logical

reason why, because goods are sold by auction, we should permit a sale which would otherwise be an illegal sale.

7.17 p.m.

Sir H. Williams: I do not think the Mover of the Amendment has realised what would happen if it were carried. It is not as if in general we know what the permitted increase is. The auctioneer would not know. He produces an article and asks for bidding. The bidding goes up, and he does not know at what stage to say, "I cannot accept any higher bids, because if I do they will go beyond the permitted price." The permitted price can only be ascertained afterwards and the auctioneer would be put in an impossible position.

Mr. Silkin: Is not that a problem as much for the vendor, who has to make up his mind what is a legitimate price? He is in no different position from the auctioneer.

Sir H. Williams: The auctioneer is not in general selling his own goods, but somebody else's. I do not know whether the Bill will apply to secondhand goods, but the number of goods sold by auctioneers which are secondhand must constitute a large part of the total business. I do not know who will commit an offence. The buyer may make: an offer to buy at a price exceeding the permitted price, and the auctioneer thus knock it down at a price above the permitted price. I am not clear which of the two has committed an offence. Are you going to fine the auctioneer for conniving at the offence? The man who should be punished is the man who was made the offer above the permitted price. A new Bill would be required if auction sales were to be included.

7.20 p.m.

Mr. Poole: While we appreciate the point made by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams), there is another approach to this problem. There may be a very real danger, in the case of what we know as the "Dutch auction," of an evasion of the provisions of this Bill and an exploitation of the present situation. At the end of the day's trading a man may find himself with a surplus of a particular article for which he knows the maximum permitted price is, say, 1s. He may start selling that article by "Dutch auction," asking at first 2s. and


gradually coming down in price, and simply because there is a demand for that particular article and a shortage of supplies there may be people who will be prepared to pay 1s. 6d. for it. By those means the man would get more than the permitted price and those people who desired the article would have to pay more. There is there a clear opportunity of evading the provisions of this Bill.

7.22 p.m.

Mr. Ammon: I think a good deal of the trouble here arises from the fact that the word "auction" is not defined. I take it that the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) and the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Mr. K. Griffith) had in mind auctions conducted by licensed auctioneers. What we on this side have in mind is what not uncommonly happens on Saturday nights in butchers' shops where the meat that is left is put up to a kind of auction. There may be a temptation for a trader to withhold some of his stock and then put it up for auction in that way, hoping to evade the provisions of this Bill. If we could define the auction as one conducted by a licensed auctioneer it would to a large extent meet the difficulty.

7.23 p.m.

Major Lloyd George: The Government do not think that it would be practicable to accept this Amendment. I cannot see how the provisions of this Bill could apply to auctions in the ordinary sense of the word, because there the price is fixed by the buyer and not by the seller. I do not know what would happen when the permitted price was reached. It might be very entertaining. With regard to "Dutch auctions," I understand that there the process starts by the man asking "Who will offer me so much for this article?" If the price he asked was above the permitted price, that would be an offence straight away, because he would be making an offer for sale. I think it will be as well to exclude the regular type of auction from the Bill, and we could not possibly accept the Amendment, but if the hon. Member asks me whether we will look into the definition of the word "auction" I will agree to do so.

7.24 p.m.

Mr. Alexander: If that is an undertaking to consider words or a definition

Clause to be inserted in another place I think we can accept the Parliamentary Secretary's assurance, but if it does not mean that possibly we ought to divide on this Amendment. The point is that the practice in markets described by the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) is widespread, and if we have not defined "auction" we may get a good deal of evasion of the law by persons setting up in market places to auction boots and shoes, dry goods, fancy aprons and all, sorts of other things, starting them at a price below the maximum permitted price and then asking for bids. Because it was the bidder who made the bid, according to the ruling of the Parliamentary Secretary there would be no offence. The whole purpose of such an auction would be to avoid the maximum price. Therefore, unless we can have a definite undertaking that the Board of Trade will introduce a definition Clause which will confine this exemption to licensed auctioneers I feel that the Government have not met the case.

7.26 p.m.

Mr. Pickthorn: I am not very expert in these matters, but is not the whole object of markets and street sales to sell more cheaply than in the shops, and does not the argument which has been advanced from the Opposition benches really depend on the assumption that there is no competition with the markets? Is it not really unthinkable that there should be any considerable number of sales of the kind suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) so long as there were shops selling the articles at a lower price?

7.27 p.m.

Mr. Burke: The Minister suggested that it would be very unlikely that at an auction the permitted price, if it were known, would be exceeded, and the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) suggested that the object of these auctions is to sell things more cheaply than they can be obtained normally in shops. That may be true in normal times, but it might not be the position at the present time in the case of the markets which are held in towns in the industrial North on Saturday nights. A situation like this might arise. There has been very great competition to get black cloth for black-out purposes and it


has been run up to an enormous price. Let us assume that the Minister fixes a price of 1s. 6d. a yard for 50-inch black cloth for A.R.P. purposes. The demand has been great and there have not been sufficient supplies of cloth coming forward to meet it, and in such a case there might be many people very well prepared to pay 1s. 11d. a yard for it, just as they have been prepared to pay high prices for all kinds of A.R.P. material at a time of shortage. In those circumstances I envisage the possibility of a good deal of evasion of the provisions of this Measure in markets which in normal times supply goods more cheaply but see an opportunity now to get away with a good deal of illicit profit. I think the Government might get round the difficulty by restricting the term "auction" to what is normally regarded as an auction, an auction of second-hand goods in a recognised sale room.

7.29 p.m.

Mr. Tinker: I cannot see any reason why this Sub-section should be in the Bill at all. If a person does not exceed the price fixed by law he will not get into trouble, and therefore I do not see why auction should be included at all. I understand that auctions sell goods at a lower price than they would fetch in the ordinary way of trade and if that is so no offence will be committed, but if the prices exceed the prices which have been fixed there will be an offence against the law. I do not see any reason why these words should be in the Bill at all. Let the Act go on upon its ordinary course and, if there is an auction at which the goods are sold at a price which heavily exceeds the permitted price, then an offence will have been committed under the Act.

Mr. Griffith: I am a mere child in these matters and I want to be instructed. Is the hon. Member who last spoke really right in saying that the object of auctions is to sell goods at a price below the ordinary? If so I must have been to a very different kind of auction.

Mr. Tinker: I was speaking of the ordinary market sales on Saturday nights. The goods that are sold usually go for prices that are lower than those which are charged by the ordinary stall.

Mr. Griffith: I imagine that the object of an auction is to get a somewhat higher price. The effect of the Sub-section will surely be to make auction sales impossible. Assuming that you know what the permitted price is, as soon as anybody has bid the permitted price he is entitled to say: "Stop there. I have offered the permitted price under Section 11 of the Act for those goods, and if you proceed to ask anybody else to offer a higher price you are committing an offence under that Section. You have to stop and knock the goods down to me."

Major Lloyd George: I will look into the question between now and the Report stage, and I hope that the hon. Member will be prepared, in view of this promise, to withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. Silkin: After that assurance from the hon. and gallant Gentleman I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

7.32 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: I beg to move, in page 9, line 22, to leave out Sub-section (2).
This Amendment, providing for the deletion of Sub-section (2), is moved largely for the purpose of obtaining elucidation. I should be interested to learn why the Board of Trade have excluded goods intended for export from the provisions of the Bill. While they are desirous of limiting, if not of removing, profiteering in this country, they do not appear to be in the least concerned about goods intended for export. As regards that, if these were normal times it would be proper to seek to obtain a higher price for goods being exported, but these are abnormal times. It might be strategically unwise to allow traders to export goods at excessive prices.
I am reminded of what happened on the last occasion that this country was at war, when, as some of my hon. Friends will remember, coal was sold for export to some countries at prices largely in excess of those which the cost of production warranted. In consequence, we incurred the bitter resentment of the countries concerned and eventually, and certainly for some time, lost part of the trade. That resentment in fact still exists. This illustration applies particularly in the case of Italy. We do not want a repetition of that sort of thing. It seems a little invidious to seek to


prevent profiteering—I do not put it higher than that, because I doubt whether the Bill will actually prevent profiteering, in spite of the good intentions of the Government—in this country and yet to allow traders and consumers, in neutral countries friendly to us, to be charged very much higher prices.
I want the Government to exercise the utmost discretion and differentiation in their treatment of our export trade and— I know we cannot really discuss this matter on the Bill—to adapt themselves to the circumstances. Generally speaking, I would deprecate any action such as is suggested in the Clause which would encourage traders in this country to limit their internal trading operations because of this Measure, and to divert that trade to export purposes so that they might reap certain financial advantages. That would be bad for consumers in this country and, what seems to be a point of substance, bad for the Government and the country as a whole in our relations with foreign countries. I mean, of course, neutral countries.
There may be practical reasons why my Amendment cannot be accepted, and if so I should like to hear what they are. Anyhow I am putting the Amendment before the Committee largely for purposes of elucidating what is in the mind of the Government, and in order to make abundantly clear that on this side of the Committee we are concerned not merely with an attempt to limit profiteering at home but with conducting our trading relations with friendly countries, for the duration of the war at least if not for long after, on terms fair to them and equally fair to ourselves.

7.39 p.m.

Mr. Pickthorn: I could not support the Amendment, nor would I agree with all the arguments used in moving it, but perhaps it is not altogether a waste of one minute of the Committee's time for me to try to make it clear that some hon. Members, ideologically on the other side from the last speaker, think that the Government ought to give very serious consideration to their means of controlling prices of goods intended for export. There certainly have been manufacturers —cotton manufacturers have certainly been scandalously bad—who have put up prices even upon pre-war contracts so as to make extremely difficult that flow of

export which is essential if the whole enterprise is to be carried on. Although I agree with the authorities responsible for drafting the Bill, yet I suggest that more consideration should be given to the potentialities for limiting that kind of price-raising in the export market.

7.40 p.m.

Mr. Mander: I wish, if possible, to incorporate into the Bill some Amendment of this kind, because from many points of view it is obviously undesirable that there should be excessive prices in regard to exports, particularly when one remembers that customers abroad in neutral countries, apart from any price they will have to pay for the goods, will have to pay large sums in the way of freight and insurance—sometimes very large sums owing to the conditions which exist—in order to get them over there. I therefore hope the Minister will be good enough to see whether it is possible to incorporate this Amendment in the Bill. I do see great difficulties. Who is going to complain? Is it the importer in a neutral country? There are all sorts of problems of this kind which make it difficult to see how the machinery will operate.

7.41 p.m.

Sir Joseph Nall: I do not think the hon. Member need be unnecessarily alarmist about this matter, nor do I see why the hon. and gallant Gentleman should not give immediate attention to it. I hope that in the cotton export trade which has been mentioned the responsible organisations are very much alive to damage which may be done if undue raising of prices should take place, and that bodies such as the Chambers of Commerce have got these matters in hand, particularly with a view to seeing that the foreign buyer gets a square deal. So long as one realises the damage which would be done if an improper course were taken, that would be far more effective in ensuring that we take the best chance of continuing our exports without irritating the consumer abroad.

7.43 p.m.

Major Lloyd George: I am impressed by the remarks which have been made on the question of the export trade, but I do not think it is necessary for me to say that this Sub-section was not drafted for the sort of thing which took place at the


end of the last war. The sole reason why this Sub-section is in the Bill is that we do not think that this legislation is appropriate. The question of machinery is difficult. In certain cases I am not sure who would make the complaint. I suppose the complaint would be made to the local committee or to the central committee in London. I would be grateful if the hon. Member could make any suggestions on this point.

7.44 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: I appreciate the difficulties as regards machinery. I saw the difficulty when I put the Amendment on the Paper, but I urge the hon. and gallant Gentleman to consider one point, namely, the possibility of traders refusing to sell goods and diverting them to export. I do not know how you are going to deal with that.

Mr. Charles Brown: You could refuse the export licence in a case of that sort.

Mr. Shinwell: I am obliged to the hon. Member for that suggestion, and I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman has noted it. With regard to the machinery which must be devised, I am convinced that unless we prevent a rise in the price of goods for export we shall do ourselves harm, and that is what I am anxious to avoid. This is not the occasion for discussing the matter at length. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will look at the matter closely and see whether something can be done, if not in this direction in some other direction, I shall be quite content.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In page 9, line 22, after"sale,"insert"of."—[The Solicitor-General.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 14 to 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 17.—(Offences by corporations.)

7.47 p.m.

Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, in page 10, line 42, to leave out "or," and to insert "and."
This Clause provides that where a company has been found guilty of an offence the board of directors shall be deemed to have been guilty of the

offence unless they prove either that the offence was committed without their knowledge or that they exercised all due diligence to prevent the contravention. Merely to prove that the offence was committed without their knowledge would not be a sufficient deterrent. It may well be that directors would make themselves deliberately ignorant of a particular contravention, knowing all the time that certain things were going on. Moreover, the directors are the responsible persons in the management of a company. They are in the position of proprietors of a business, and for a director merely to say, "I was not aware that profiteering was going on in my company," should not be treated as a sufficient answer to a charge of profiteering. Therefore, in order to escape being deemed guilty of an offence under this Bill where his company has already been convicted, a director should not only have to establish that he was not aware of the particular offence, but also that he exercised all due diligence to prevent profiteering going on in his company.
I realise it is possible, if the Amendment is accepted, that certain consequential alterations will have to be made to the rest of the Clause, and, no doubt, if the Government accept the Amendment the other consequential Amendments can be made on the Report stage. This Amendment ought to be accepted, because otherwise the Clause is merely nullified. Any director who desires to commit offences of this sort could easily establish that he was not aware that a particular offence was committed, all the time being aware of the system that was in operation and of the kind of prices being charged.

7.50 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): This form of words has appeared in other Acts passed by this House, and, while appreciating the point made by the hon. Gentleman, I think that the case which he put would not be likely to arise. If it did arise, the court would probably see through it. Directors are responsible for the general policy and running of a company. On the other hand, directors may fulfil their duties to the fullest extent without being actually in touch with the day-to-day transactions of the business. Under the Clause, as drafted, the officers of the body corporate


are deemed to be guilty if an offence has been committed. The onus is on them of proving one or other of the two things set out in the Clause. I think that a director who really knew what was going on would not be able to satisfy the condition of proving that the offence was committed without his knowledge. In the case of a director who was absent through sickness or some other cause, nobody would desire that he should be convicted; but the director who obviously was in touch with the business, and certainly ought to know what was going on, would, I should think—although, of course, one cannot forecast what a court would do in hypothetical circumstances— have to produce strong proof of his innocence before the court was satisfied under that first head. The second alternative is that the director proves
that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the contravention.
I agree that the two things are not made cumulative; but I think it would be ridiculous to make them cumulative, and to ask a man who had been absent through sickness for a year to prove
that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the contravention.

Mr. Silkin: I said that I recognised that there would have to be some alteration in the remaining words if my Amendment was accepted. Whatever happens, a director who wants to escape conviction should have to prove
that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the contravention.
That should be essential.

The Attorney-General: Everybody will agree that you want to let out the man who, because of sickness, war work, or any other cause, could not have had knowledge of what was going on. It would be inappropriate to ask him to prove
that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the contravention.
Then, one has to deal with the case of a man who has not been absent from the business, and who is required to prove that he has exercised due diligence. I think the Clause will work as both the hon. Gentleman and I want it to work, so that if the man had no means of knowing what was going on he gets out under the first provision, and so that if he had means such as would entitle him, at any

rate, to infer what was going on, he cannot satisfy the court unless he has given evidence of his vigilance as a director in seeing that the Act was not being contravened. I believe that these words meet the two classes of cases as adequately as words can; but I certainly do not mind looking at the words again, to see whether they can be improved in the light of what the hon. Member has said.

Mr. Silkin: I think these words go rather beyond what the Attorney-General has said, but if he will look at them again I am prepared to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 19.—(Application to Scotland.)

7.58 p.m.

Mr. Ammon: I beg to move, in page 12, line 10, to leave out from "fit," to "and," in line 11, and to insert "request the Lord Advocate to institute proceedings accordingly."
In the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill (Mr. Davidson), and in order to give the Government an opportunity of accepting the Amendment, I am formally moving it on my hon. Friend's behalf.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. James Reid): We have no objection to accepting the alteration of phraseology. I do not think it is any more than that, because it merely makes explicit what was previously implicit.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 12, line 13, leave out "after such a report," and insert "upon request made to him as aforesaid."—[Mr. Ammon.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 20 and 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Meaning in this Act of the expression "offer.")

In this Act references to an offer to sell goods shall be construed as including a reference to a notification by a person of the price proposed by him for a sale of goods, made by


the publication of a price list, by exposing the goods for sale in association with a mark indicating price, by the furnishing of a quotation, or otherwise howsoever, and the reference in Section ten of this Act to an offer to enter into a transaction shall be construed similarly as including a reference to a notification of the consideration proposed for the transaction.—[The Attorney-General.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

8.0 p.m.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This is a new Clause defining for the purposes of the Act an offer to sell goods. The matters set out would not technically be offers to sell for the purposes of other branches of the law, such as a contract for the sale of goods, but it is obviously desirable that for the purposes of this Bill they should be regarded as offers to sell, and it is thought necessary and desirable to make it quite clear that these matters may be regarded as offers to sell.

Mr. Ede: Does this mean that the mere placing of a mark indicating the price of an article exposed for sale in the shop, if it is above the permitted increased price, will in itself be an offence, although in fact no one goes into the shop desiring to purchase it, but the thing is observed by someone who is competent to make a complaint?

The Attorney-General: Yes, it means that. It would be an offence.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Matters to be regarded in fixing permitted increase.)

8.3 p.m.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: I beg to move, in page 14, line 5, after "Cost" to insert "(at the current market prices)."
I move this Amendment not only because I have been asked to, but also because in my experience there is a good deal to be said for it. It appears necessary to clarify the meaning of the word "cost." It seems equitable that the cost should be the current market price at the date on which the permitted increase is ascertained, and not the price at which the trader has purchased his raw materials.

Mr. Mander: On a point of Order. Would it not be convenient to take the

next Amendment together with this? It relates to the same thing though in a reverse direction.

The Chairman: I have no doubt that the hon. Member will express his views on the Amendment that is now being moved. That will be in order. I was not proposing to select the next Amendment.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: The first consideration with the trader is that he should replace his stock. If he has the good fortune to sell a large quantity of it and has to replace it and buy his raw materials at the current market prices, these words should be inserted in the Schedule. If he is not allowed to take into consideration the cost of replacement of his raw materials, he will steadily face what will ultimately come to him, namely, ruin. The Schedule says:
Cost of the provision of materials, whether raw or semi-manufactured, and of stocks of goods requisite for the carrying on of the business.
A man cannot carry on his business if he is not allowed to take into consideration the replacement of his raw material at current market prices.

8.5 p.m.

Mr. Mander: I hope that discussion of this Amendment will enable us to obtain from the Government a clear statement as to what view they take of this matter. You could not have a clearer case of profiteering than where you get a man who has in stock a certain number of articles and says to himself, "When I have sold them I shall have to replace them, and I shall have to pay 50 per cent. more for my raw material. Therefore, I will at once put up by 50 per cent. the price of all the articles that I have in stock." There is a great tendency for people, without thinking the thing out, to do that. It is one of the worst forms of profiteering, and I think that is the view taken in the country generally. At the same time, I appreciate that there is an intermediate stage. A man may well say to himself, "I am getting near the end of my stock, or I have got some way through it, and I shall have to pay 50 per cent. more for the materials for manufacturing new stock. In order to avoid a large increase of 50 per cent. I will now, at this stage, make an increase of something much lower, say 25 per cent., so as to even the thing out between


the one and the other." That sort of thing, no doubt, is legitimate, but we want to be careful not to give any encouragement to people to take advantage of the situation in which we find ourselves and at once put on the whole of their stocks the charge that they would have to pay if they bought the material at present prices.

8.8 p.m.

Sir George Schuster: This is a very important matter, and it is not quite proper that it should be left where the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) has left it. He told us the other day that his chief connection with trade is that he is president of the Fish and Chips Association of Wolverhampton. I have no doubt that, if one looks at trade from the point of view of a person dealing in fish and chips, this question of replacement value does not arise in an acute form. I am not so sure that I agree with the Amendment, but I certainly disagree with what has been said by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton. I should like an assurance from the Government that the matter will be interpreted in a liberal and fair way. It is a very complicated question and it requires very careful consideration. It would be one of the most important points on which, perhaps, instructions will have to be issued to the committees. I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will give us an assurance that he appreciates the importance of the matter and that he will try to see that instructions are issued which will ensure that it is dealt with in a fair way from the business point of view.

8.10 p.m.

Major Lloyd George: The two Amendments which we are discussing at the same time are two extremes on this question, and I propose to take the middle course. I think that both Amendments are quite unnecessary because they give an undesirable rigidity to the committee who are instructed under Clause 4 reasonably to take into account certain things. The committee, reading that Clause, would be perfectly entitled to take the cost of the provision of materials at a certain date, but it does not follow that it is necessary to do so, and in my judgment it is most undesirable that they should be bound to do so. It is the normal practice in many cases to cover

costs over a period, and where there are stocks in hand to strike a balance between the two. I have come across cases where people have stock in hand bought at a pre-war price. It is essential that these stocks should be kept at a certain level, and you find the replacement cost is a little higher. That seems to be the common practice in the trade, and it is satisfactory to the consumer because it avoids the sudden rise in price that you would get if you did not do that. When stocks come down to the level when they would normally need replacement the general practice has been to marry the old price and the new. If you were to suggest that the replacement cost at a certain date should be in the Bill, you would have to deal with the problem of the people who bought large stocks. If prices were to rise at a certain date, that which you wanted to avoid would be encouraged. Therefore, it is absolutely essential that we should leave this to the committees. The words are perfectly clear that they should take reasonable account of what these costs should be. I would far rather leave it like that than have any definition one way or the other.

8.14 p.m.

Mr. Mander: I am naturally satisfied with what has been said because the hon. and gallant Gentleman's argument was the same as that which I was endeavouring to put forward myself. I only put down the Amendment because I saw the other Amendment on the Paper, and I considered that there ought to be some challenge to that extraordinary point of view.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: In view of what has been said, and as it appears that there is a compromise in view and that the committee are to use their discretion, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: I understand that it is not the desire on the part of the Government to move the next Amendment—in page 14, leave out lines 9 and 10, and insert:
Rent (or rental value of freehold premises), expense of maintenance of premises and plant, and expense of provision for depreciation and obsolescence thereof.

Mr. Alexander: Why is the Amendment not to be moved?

The Chairman: I cannot allow a debate or discussion on that at the moment. It must come on the question that the Schedule stand part.

Mr. Mander: I beg to move, in page 14, line 12, at the end, to insert, "Pensions, benevolent and welfare schemes."
This is merely another item that I thought ought to be added to the words "wages and salaries." It may well be that these items would be included under some of the other headings, but they are items that ought to be encouraged in every way, and that is why I want to emphasise the fact by actually inserting them in the Schedule, and I hope that the Government will be able to accept the Amendment.

Major Lloyd George: I shall be glad to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

8.16 p.m.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: I beg to move, in page 14, line 14, at the end, to insert "costs of packing, packages, and containers."
I move this Amendment on behalf of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton). I notice that in the Schedule there have been a number of omissions, and the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander), which has just been accepted, is an indication that the Schedule is hardly complete. That fact emboldens me to press for the acceptance of the Amendment I am moving, in view of the fact that in all forms of trade bottles, cases, cartons, tins, wrappings, etc., come into the question of the cost of production, and I would remind the Committee that a great many things are bought because they have suitable wrappings or containers or are contained in special bottles. The question that I am now raising is a very important one. Attractive containers mean much to traders, and although it is just possible that the cost of production of materials might cover what I am now moving, I think it would be a great deal better if the representative of the Board of Trade would accept the Amendment.

8.18 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: I am afraid that my right hon. Friend cannot accept the Amendment which has been moved by

my hon. and gallant Friend, and the reason is that it must be included in one or other of the categories for which we have already provided. The whole desire in this Schedule, and the reason why, incidentally, we have not moved some of the Amendments that we put down, is that we desire to leave the whole matter on as broad a basis as possible. The more you specify, the more difficulty you create and the more you bring into operation one of the most obnoxious principles of law that by expressing one thing you exclude another. If you leave the picture as broad and general as possible you can bring in any reasonable expense. I should think that the particular instances that occur in this Amendment relate to specified trades, and I should imagine that they are covered, for example, either in transport charges or perhaps under marketing measures—containers might very well come under that—or under manufacturing and processing operations. In one or other of these broad categories, these various things are covered. Suppose, on the other hand, that we included these particular words, then by implication we would exclude a whole lot of other things which might equally well come under one of the general categories I have described. For that reason, and desiring to keep the whole Schedule as general as possible, it would, I think, be undesirable to accept an Amendment which introduces this particular element.

8.20 p.m.

Sir G. Schuster: I was very glad to hear my hon. and learned Friend say what he did about the danger of trying to make anything like an exhaustive list, but I would put it to him that the draftsman or the Government have not entirely avoided that danger. The Schedule seems to fall between two stools. It purports to be a very exhaustive list, but when we look at it we find a number of things omitted. For instance, there is no mention of cost of distribution. There is included the expense of manufacturing and processing operations, but there is no mention of the cost of distribution, which is an essential part of passing the goods on to the public. When my hon. and learned Friend spoke I was hoping that he would say that this would be covered by the words:
any other matter specified in an Order made by the Board of Trade under this Schedule.
If we could rely on that omnibus provision at the end being interpreted to cover this


kind of thing, then we could be quite satisfied, because it is clear what the intention of the Government is, but I submit that it would be rather difficult to include the cost of packing, packages and containers in transport charges.

8.22 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: I cannot say in any particular instance what packages, containers or packing would come under, but they must surely come under either the provision of materials requisite for carrying on the business, or under transport charges, or under marketing methods. As the hon. Member for Walsall (Sir G. Schuster) has raised the question of distribution, I should think that, on general examination, marketing methods cover the cost of distribution. I would, however, repeat what I have said, that it is far better to leave a broad picture, and in that connection it is essential to look at Clause 4, which provides that the "permitted increase" means:
an amount not exceeding such increase as is reasonably justified in view of the matters specified in the First Schedule to this Act.
That keeps the whole picture perfectly general. The moment you begin to narrow down and single out any specified thing you have to include all kinds of specific things, and you make the Schedule narrower than we prefer to see it.

Mr. Ammon: Having regard to the question of containers, I would ask how you would send beer away without a barrel.

8.23 p.m.

Mr. Bevan: There is a further difficulty to which some attention ought to be paid, and that is that there is no language in the Schedule or in the Clause which relates to a reasonable charge. There is reference to a reasonable increase, but it does not make any modification of the original charge. It may be that at the time the basic price was fixed there was an entirely reasonable expense in connection with the business. A person may have been paid before 1st August a nominal sum, but subsequently he is paid a full salary of a considerable amount. The employment of that person at a full salary may not have been reasonable in the beginning but the increase may be reasonable later, although in the original charge it was not necessary.

The Chairman: The hon. Member is now discussing something that should be discussed on the Schedule as a whole and not on this Amendment.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: By reason of the fact that the previous Amendment was accepted I thought that my Amendment was in the same category, but realising, as I do, that cases of this kind will be decided fairly and reasonably, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.25 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 14, line 17, at the end, to insert, "Provision for bad debts."

Mr. K. Griffith: I am glad that the Minister is moving to insert this Amendment. It was a suggestion which I threw out on the Second Reading, without very thorough consideration, whether it was possible to include it in the Schedule; but I knew from practical experience that it might be a very important matter. I am, therefore, very glad that the Minister has found it possible to include it in the Bill.

Mr. Mander: I should like to ask how it is that the words were not included in the original schedule. Possibly it was intended to cover it under some other heading. It seems to me a very important item to have left out.

Mr. Ammon: I should like to ask whether it is good business to encourage this sort of thing in regard to bad debts. Is there not a possibility that this charge may be put on to the consumer?

The Solicitor-General: The origin of this Amendment was the observation of my hon. Friend the Member for Middles-brough, West (Mr. Griffith). When, as we always do, we scrutinised the hon. Member's observations closely, I came to the conclusion that there might be room for doubt whether, in the general words, "bad debts" were included. One could argue that they were, but I took the view that it would be better in the case of a general matter of this kind to include them specifically in the Schedule. With regard to the observations of the hon. Member for Camberwell North (Mr. Ammon), if he will devote his attention for a moment to his right hon. neighbour, the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) I think he might find that his right hon. Friend would be horrified at


the thought that he would not be allowed in his returns to make some allowance for bad debts.

Mr. Alexander: On the contrary, my experience so far as this war is concerned is that I am always being told that our business is so well managed that it does not make bad debts.

Mr. Bevan: To those hon. Members who are not trained in the law would the Solicitor-General define a bad debt? Is a bad debt one that the trader has written off?

The Solicitor-General: I am not a trader, but I have some little experience of the matter as dealt with under the Income Tax law. Under the Income Tax law provision is allowed in relation to a particular trade, based upon general experience, of the amount of bad debts that may be expected in that trade. It is a fixed amount. Sometimes it may be exceeded in the matter of debts and sometimes it may not be reached, but by general practice the amount is taken at a level figure of a percentage of the intake of the business. No doubt any accountant would be able in respect of any particular business to say what would be a fair percentage to take on account of bad debts.

8.31 p.m.

Mr. Bevan: That raises an entirely different issue. I understand that normally, so far as the Inland Revenue are concerned, debts are taxed as recoverable, but that there is a certain practice which varies from trade to trade. Here we have a general statement that bad debts are to be included as the expenses of the business, as part of the costs of production, but there is no definition of what a bad debt is or what the percentage may be. A man may say that he has a certain amount of debts which he cannot collect; and he sells them. A trader often sells his debts to a collector, who is sometimes able to collect the whole of the debts from the original debtors. I should like to know whether the difference between the actual amount owing and the amount which a trader gets from his factor for the debts is to be written off as a bad debt? He may have an arrangement with the person to whom he sells his debts—I have known that to happen. He is prepared to sell his debts and take a certain percentage from the collector. The Solicitor-

General must really define what he means by a bad debt. Is there to be a percentage, and is it to be the amount fixed by the Inland Revenue? Otherwise it can be such an elastic amount as to concede almost anything.

8.34 p.m.

Mr. Alexander: This, of course, is based on the interpretation of Clause 4, which says that the "permitted increase" means an amount not exceeding such increase as is reasonably justified. We are not dealing with Income Tax at all but with the price of goods. Surely the prewar price of goods is what can be got in competition from the market, and in respect of which every trader has to make his own arrangements in relation to his ordinary charges before he is able to fix his price. Is it suggested that in ordinary business in peace times there is a percentage added in a competitive market to deal with bad debts? It may be so. It may be that the general level of distributive business may be affected to a slight margin by the existence of bad debts, which may have to be written off or which may be sold at a discount to a contractor. But in respect of "permitted increase" how does that come in? I do not see how it can be applied to the interpretation of Clause 4, and that is why I do not think it is reasonable to insert it in the Schedule.

8.36 p.m.

Mr. K. Griffith: In so far as bad debts are a permanent liability on industry, if one assumes that they are going on at the same level after the war when the local committee comes to take the First Schedule into consideration and the case for bad debts is the same as before the war, there will be nothing to allow for. It is only if there is an increase. What I had in mind was that there has been, as a result of war circumstances, in certain businesses a peculiar volume of bad debts, the direct result of Government action. There is the evacuation scheme, where you have people driven away and you cannot find the debtors. If there is no actual increase in bad debts nothing will be allowed under the Schedule.

8.37 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: The hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. K. Griffith) has made my speech for me.


The discussion really arises from a misunderstanding. What we are dealing with in the Schedule is the "permitted increase" and it is only when the volume of bad debts provides an increase that the trader can evoke that increase in order to say that it justifies some increase in the overhead charges which are reasonable to the business as a whole.

Mr. Bevan: Can a trader take any action which alienates money from himself before he can claim it as a bad debt?

The Solicitor-General: Picture the position. A trader comes before the tribunal to justify a charge for some goods. Whatever the ordinary price it is now £2 more, and he is called upon to justify it. He says that he justifies it by reference to a variety of causes; wages have gone up, the cost of transport has gone up, and many other things, and that since the outbreak of the war there has been a vast increase in the bad debts which he has incurred. Before the war his accountant regularly allowed in his returns 5 per cent. on his turnover for bad debts, but since the war, owing to circumstances such as those pointed out by the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough, they have been greatly increased. He says, "Here are my books. You will find that over the period of the last six months my cash transactions are in arrears to the extent of four months." Any accountant would find no difficulty in those circumstances in assessing the amount by which the allowance for bad debts on the profit and loss account should be increased over the allowance which was made over the pre-war turnover. It is only in respect of the increase due to war circumstances that he is entitled to come under the Schedule at all.

Mr. Bevan: Will a trader be permitted to take an accountant's certificate and give it to the Inland Revenue officer in discharge of revenue?

The Chairman: I think I must interfere here. We have already passed Clause 4, and I must call the attention of hon. Members to the fact that Cluase 4 provides for these matters in the Schedule as matters which have to be taken "in view." We must not discuss the methods by which they will be taken in view.

Mr. Bevan: The matters which are dealt with in Clause 4 have now been added to by the Government. They have added an entirely new category, and a highly controversial category which they have not defined for the benefit of the Committee.

The Chairman: I must interrupt the hon. Member in order to justify myself. The hon. Member will see that the actual words are "provision for," and my point is that this item is one which can be taken "in view," to use the actual words of Clause 4, and that therefore we must not discuss here how the question is going to be taken in view. That is a matter to be settled under Clause 4.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. Bevan: It is necessary for the Committee to obtain from the Solicitor-General a definition of what he considers to be a justifiable increase in bad debts. He has told us that there is a practice in trade by which a certain amount of the debt which accumulates in the books of a trader is regarded as irrecoverable, and he has said that over and above that there is an increase due to certain circumstances. I want to ask whether the trader has to do anything about that debt in order to prove to the persons who are examining the books that it is, in fact, an irrecoverable debt and should be regarded as a bad debt. The other day, when we were discussing an entirely different matter, it was stated that the courts would take a very lenient view of debts accumulating at this time. Must the trader get an order from the court, or fail to get such an order, in respect of the debt referred to by the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. K. Griffith) before he can prove to the investigating persons that the debts are, in fact, irrecoverable? How is he to prove that? If the debts had merely accumulated by way of a normal increase, he would get it in the usual fashion, but here the reference is to a war-time increase in bad debts. What must the trader do in order to prove that those debts are irrecoverable?
Furthermore—and this is very important—I submit that the trader could have a first-class wangle over this, especially in the depressed areas. That was the case in 1921 and 1922. The Inland Revenue lost large amounts of money there, and


yet the poor people, the consumers, got no redress. They were pursued by debt collectors for years. The Inland Revenue lost the money because the trader was able to say that he had sold the debts, but the consumers did not gain. As a matter of fact, on top of the original debt, there were court charges added. In South Wales there was the bitter experience of harpies who accumulated fortunes out of the poor. The trader lost, the Inland Revenue lost, the consumer lost, and only a very undesirable kind of dealer in this most unfortunate business succeeded in fattening himself. Exactly the same kind of thing can happen in the present circumstances. Certainly, there is no redress for the person whom we are trying to protect. We have here the inclusion of an item which does not seem to me to have been given proper consideration and which might change the whole basis of the calculation of what is really increasing the prices. I think the Solicitor-General ought again to consider the Amendment before asking us to accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. BEVAN:

In page 14, line 22, at the end, add:
A decrease under any one of the above items shall be set off against any increase under any other such items.

Mr. Bevan: The point raised in this Amendment is a simple one, and I think it is largely a matter of drafting. If hon. Members will look at Clause 4, they will see again that it is only an increase in the items set forth in the First Schedule that can be taken into account. Obviously, not only increases, but also reductions should be taken into account. I understand from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade that on the Report stage he proposes to introduce a form of words on the Clause itself which will meet the point raised in the Amendment, and therefore, I shall not move the Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this Schedule, as amended, be the First Schedule to the Bill."

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Ammon: I think the Committee ought to have some explanation as to why the Amendments at the top of

page 2070 of the Order Paper—In page 14, leave out lines 9 and 10, and insert:
Rent (or rental value of freehold premises), expense of maintenance of premises and plant, and expense of provision for depreciation and obsolescence thereof.
and in page 14, line 12, at the end, insert:
Administration and establishment expenses."—
were withdrawn by the Government. They must have had some purpose in putting these Amendments on the Paper, and I think we ought to be given some explanation. I can see a good deal of substance in the Solicitor-General's statement that it may be undesirable to be too specific in certain details that may have a limiting effect. In that respect, I would suggest that the Amendment to line 12 should not be dropped, as the words which it proposes to insert would enlarge the scope, and consequently, the Solicitor-General's contention does not obtain in the case of that Amendment. I should think that it might be worth while for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to consider whether in another place that Amendment should not be inserted.

8.46 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving me an opportunity of saying why we have not proceeded with these Amendments at the moment. Between now and the Report stage we propose to consider whether the words of those Amendments are happy from an accountancy point of view. It does not follow that we shall leave the Schedule exactly as it is, but on looking at the Amendments we had put down, it seemed to me that they would infringe the principle I stated a minute or two ago of trying to keep the picture as broad as possible. In including with such precision things like maintenance, obsolescence and depreciation, I was not sure whether, for example, such expenditure as that on air-raid precautions was covered by those words. It is covered by the original words and not by the new words, and consequently, the Amendment seemed to narrow the picture, and it might have made it necessary to give a further definition in the case of some of the remaining parts of the Schedule. That was the reason we did not proceed with that Amendment. With regard to administration and establishment expenses, it may be that on the Report stage we shall have


to put in something which is understandable on an accountancy basis which will give effect to those words, and perhaps to some of the words that we have in the Amendment on the Paper, which was not moved.

Mr. Ammon: I largely agree with the Solicitor-General with regard to the first Amendment, which I think is limiting in effect, but I am bound to say that to add administration and establishment expenses, following on wages and salaries, would seem to me to broaden the picture, and I think that Amendment should be given further consideration.

8.48 p.m.

Mr. Mander: There is one sentence in the Schedule which I would ask the Solicitor-General to be good enough to elucidate, as I think it needs to be made somewhat clearer to some people, at any rate. In line 18, there is a reference to:
Changes in the total volume of the business over which the overhead expenses thereof fall to be spread.
Does that mean that if a particular firm thought that its trade next year, owing to the war, was going to fall off by 50 per cent., it would be entitled to place on the price of the article the increased overhead expenses in which it would be involved? If that is so, and they are entitled to do that to the full extent, it seems to me that it is rather a loophole for putting on very considerable increases. I should like to know what view the Government take on that matter.

The Solicitor-General: We had in mind that kind of situation. Working on the view that we accept the principle of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) both upwards and downwards, suppose that one found that there had been an enormous shrinkage in the ordinary trade of a particular firm, we felt it should be justifiable, when there is a criminal charge of profiteering being made against a person, to permit him to attribute a somewhat larger proportion of his overhead expenses to a particular transaction than he would have been able to do in the previous year. The hon. Gentleman accurately diagnosed what may happen and what may cause a rise in the price of a particular article, but he must bear in mind that the question is whether a trader is committing a criminal offence and whether, in relation to a particular

article, he is charging rent and working expenses beyond his usual limits.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. Bevan: It seems to me that it is the individual trader who is always taken into account in these matters and not the practice in the trade. It is the trader's individual expenses and his own conduct that are taken into account, but his own conduct may be quite unreasonable having regard to the practice of the trade. In the Schedule the word "reasonable" does not occur. If it did occur, the court would be able to take into account whether the trader had behaved reasonably, having regard to the general practice of the trade. Clause 4 does not help because it applies merely to "reasonable increase" but the original expense may be unreasonable, having regard to the general practice of the trade. It seems to me that the word "reasonable" ought to be in the Schedule if the court is to be able to say to a trader, "You should not have charged the price of this article with the expenses of the maintenance of your son or daughter." The court should be able to have regard to the actual expenses of the trader in relation to what the expenses of an analogous trader might reasonably be supposed to be, in the same line of treatment. Perhaps at a later stage the hon. and learned Gentleman will consider some form of words which would take that into account. I know that Members are anxious to get home but there is no reason why we should leave loopholes of this kind in a Bill.

8.53 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: I should be the last to crave mercy from the Committee for letting through a slipshod Bill, but the hon. Member will accept it from me as a matter of interpretation that the word "reasonable" being in the Clause it is unnecessary to repeat that word in the Schedule. The Schedule has to be interpreted in the light of the Clause. The words of Clause 4 have been chosen to give as broad and generous a view of the situation as possible. It is impossible to make a complete rule-of-thumb guide as to whether a person has committed the offence of profiteering or not. We thought the words of Clause 4 provided to any body of ordinary men a good working guide as to whether people were making undue profit or not. The basic price was fixed and there is no


doubt about that. These are cases in which there is no specified permitted increase. Therefore, the prosecution goes on the basis, "There is a price that existed six months or 12 months ago; that price has been exceeded. Now justify yourself." That is the burden thrown on the trader. He has to satisfy people that he is reasonably justified in putting his price up to that extent, having regard to all these other matters. That reasonable consideration that he has to establish to the tribunal covers everything that is included in the Schedule. I agree with the instance that the hon. Gentleman gave. Suppose there is some nominal salary earner who was only entitled to a nominal salary before, but whose salary has been put up. If it had been put up on the outbreak of war, I do not believe he could establish to my satisfaction, if I was on the tribunal, that that was reasonable. Personally, I think the hon. Gentleman's apprehensions are really without foundation and that the adjective to which we both attach so much importance covers the whole area.

Mr. Bevan: I should like to put it on record that I do not accept the hon. and learned Gentleman's interpretation for a moment. I believe that the word "reasonable" applies only to the in-

crease, and I think it will be found in administration that that is the case.

The Solicitor-General: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. The whole principle on which we are trying to found this legislation is that on 1st August, 1939, people were charging a reasonable price. If they were not so doing at that time, it is very unfortunate, and it may have been so because there was no profiteering legislation then. I am afraid that the Bill is not adapted to deal with the case in which people were charging too much on 1st August.

Question, "That this Schedule, as amended, be the First Schedule to the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Second Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 281.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Major Sir J. Edmondson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Two Minutes before Nine o'Clock.